Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?

[LittleNipper]

LittleNipper,

This forum is for the purpose of discussing the teachings of the Catholic Church, as stated by the Catholic Church, which you have misrepresented and presented false dichotomies about. It is not for Protestant Catholic debate and anti-catholic attacks. Please refrain from such posting and be respectful in your posts. That was the reason the last comment on the last post was edited. If you wish to debate Roman Catholicism or post what you think the RCC teaches you may do so in other areas of the forum. Thx.

Blessings

Actually, this forum is called "Roman Catholicism and other Orthodox Faiths" I didn't realize that this was strictly a Roman Catholic controlled forum to promote Roman Catholicism. I do understand Evangelical Fundamentalism to be Orthodox, but then you might disagree. If disagreeing with a Roman Catholic stand is being anti-Roman Catholic, I do apologize. But if being "orthodox" one cannot be a Protestant, well, perhaps you owe me an apology.....

 

[thessalonian]

Actually, this forum is called "Roman Catholicism and other Orthodox Faiths" I didn't realize that this was strictly a Roman Catholic controlled forum to promote Roman Catholicism. I do understand Evangelical Fundamentalism to be Orthodox, but then you might disagree. If disagreeing with a Roman Catholic stand is being anti-Roman Catholic, I do apologize. But if being "orthodox" one cannot be a Protestant, well, perhaps you owe me an apology.....

The point is you have not presented a roman Catholic stand but a distorted one That is anti-catholicism and it is not allowed in this part of the board. . Either present the teaching as the roman Catholic Church teaches it or ask a question.

I have not said whether you are or are not orthodox. If you want my opinion ask a question.

If you do not like my moderating you can talk to vic or logan or any of the other moderators. I've advised Catholics on this forum as well as protestants and try to be as impartial as possible. Comments regarding moderating

controlled forum to promote Roman Catholicism

anywhere on this message board are not allowed. Consider this an informal warning. If you have a complaint against my moderating take it up in PM. Thx.

 

[LittleNipper]

LittleNipper, I do have to ask what does "my flesh is true food, my blood is true drink" mean? Don't we have to have faith in the truth of the teachings of Christ?

I feel strongly that Jesus was speaking to the Disciples of HIS impending terrible/horrible death. Anyone who has seen Mel Gibson's PASSION should be willing to agree that this seems a very likely understand of the verses in question----found at Mark 14:22-24 when compared to Luke 22:15-20. The words "Do this in REMEMBRANCE" appear to be also a part of what CHRIST stated. So again, there is a danger that one places his faith not in the sacrificial death of the Savior by faith which the HOLY SPIRIT instills, but in the ritual performed by a clergyman which seems to amount to the crucifying of JESUS CHRIST again and again, when JESUS died ONCE for ALL the sins of the world, that whosoever believeth should not perish but have eternal life. Anyone who does not accept the LORD JESUS CHRIST as the only way to be saved is in danger of eternal damnation----self inflicted.

 

[LittleNipper]

thessalonian
LittleNipper
francisdesales in default color

See, that is where I witness the line drawn. The "Eucharist" to a Catholic is the consecrated (by a priest in good standing ) of wine into the blood of Christ and the wafer into the body of Christ. I know that this isn't the case.
I believe, from your post, you are making a false dichotomy between Jesus Christ and His Body, the Church. Christ saved us THROUGH His bodily death on the cross (not a spiritual or invisible death) and CONTINUES to save mankind through this Body, the Church.

Naturally, if you read John 6, you will see that Jesus says faith IS involved in accepting the Eucharist as it really is. It doesn't come from rational human intellect, but the Spirit leading us into faith. How else could someone believe that we must eat human flesh to receive eternal life?

Participation in ceremony will not bring about salvation
You misunderstand the point of liturgy. It is during liturgical rituals that we come into ultimate contact with God Himself! It is through public prayer that we form our relationship with Jesus Christ. The rituals move our minds and hearts to what they signify - and in the Eucharist, they are also a reality and foreshadowing of the good things to come in heaven.

This forum is for the purpose of discussing the teachings of the Catholic Church, as stated by the Catholic Church, which you have misrepresented and presented false dichotomies about. It is not for Protestant Catholic debate and anti-catholic attacks. Please refrain from such posting and be respectful in your posts.

Feel free to PM me, LittleNipper, if you want to further this discussion. Be sure to bring an open heart and the possibility that your knowledge of what Catholic believe about the Eucharist might be incorrect. Without this, you will be wasting both of our time.

Regards

So, I would imagine that based on your view, that you understand the 6 Day Creation and the FLOOD to be entirely factual but above human understanding. That would be very good if Roman Catholics actually accepted that reality, but unfortunately, it would seem that criteria is reserved and applied for understanding the Eucharist, and another is applied to Biblical histoy...

I believe that many Roman Catholics accept Transubstantiation. I do not accept this as truth. That is my understanding of the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist. It would seem contrary to the Roman Catholic view of Noah's FLOOD and the story of Adam & Eve when the Roman Catholic weighs scientific opinion.

 

[thessalonian]

More distortion and rhetoric. I would edit it but I asked the question. We do not resacrifice Christ over and over. The one sacrifice is reeee-presented (not to be confused with represented). Do you not agree that the salve must be applied to the sore in order to help it heal? Then why does not Christ's grace have to be applied to the sinner in order to heal the wounds caused by sin? The Eucharist is Christ's grace from that one sacrifice brought forward and applied to our lives. It is not another sacrifice or a recrucifying as you wrongly state, but will not likely admit. Nor are we saved by the transubstantiation by the priest but by the grace of Christ available to us in the Eucharist. The manna made available as food for us from God to walk the journey through the desert of life. Once again Christ says "my flesh is true food. My blood is true drink". He also says "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life withing you." and "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will abide in me and I in him". This sounds like grace to me being applied to our lives.

I don't see anywhere that says that rememberence is symbolic. Note the parrelel between Matt 26 and John 6 "This is my body, this is my blood", "my flesh is true food, my blood is true drink". There is no doudt Jesus in John 6 makes a tie between bread, his body, and his flesh. There is no question that the flesh he is speaking about in John 6 is the bread of life that is at the last supper, and looks forward to the cross. For he says in John 6 "the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world". This is the flesh that is to be eaten. I know this is difficult for your sensibilities to grasp and your anti-catholicism makes it difficult for you to be honest about what the Bible truly says but give it a try.

There are other parrellels between John 6 and matt 26 that make it clear that he is pointing toward the Last Supper in what he says with regard to John 6. For instance they both take place near the passover.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

Little Nipper,

I will once again ask that you quite presenting the "Roman Catholic view" unless you can state it accurately.

 

[LittleNipper]

Little Nipper,

I will once again ask that you quite presenting the "Roman Catholic view" unless you can state it accurately.

Well, if I cannot present my understanding of the "Roman Catholic view," I will take heart that I may present my Biblical Fundamentalist Orthodox view and any Roman Catholic may view the difference unimpeded.

 

[thessalonian]

Wouldn't humility direct you toward correcting your misunderstanding that you call understanding. :-?

 

[LittleNipper]

The word "catholic" means universal. It is all inclusive. People who accept the LORD JESUS CHRIST as their person SAVIOR are saved once and for all eternity. They become adopted children of GOD and members of the Universal CHURCH.
As such they are also the bride of CHRIST and one HE will not divorce. This the Evangelical Fundamentalist Orthodox belief and the one I hold to. This said, no one may come to GOD the FATHER by any other means. Works cannot earn one salvation and yet salvation produces works of the SPIRIT. A Muslim who rejects the sacrificial payment made by the LORD JESUS CHRIST is damned already as is anyone who rejects the GIFT of GOD. The performance of special deeds or works outside the saving grace of GOD have no merit to save one soul. That is the Fundamentalist Evangelical Orthodox Biblical view and one I hold to.

 

[LittleNipper]

Wouldn't humility direct you toward correcting your misunderstanding that you call understanding. :-?

Does that work in your own case? :-?

 

[thessalonian]

Wouldn't humility direct you toward correcting your misunderstanding that you call understanding. :-?

Does that work in your own case? :-?

Yes. If I were to make some statement regarding your teachings and beliefs and you would tell me that you didn't believe it and your Church didn't teach it, I would gladly yeild the floor to you to tell me what you did believe. Now if by your question in kind, you mean that I should accept your renditions of what Catholicism teaches, I've studied the Catholic teachings for fourty years. I know when someone is not telling the truth about it.

Blessings

 

[LittleNipper]

Wouldn't humility direct you toward correcting your misunderstanding that you call understanding. :-?

Does that work in your own case? :-?

Yes. If I were to make some statement regarding your teachings and beliefs and you would tell me that you didn't believe it and your Church didn't teach it, I would gladly yeild the floor to you to tell me what you did believe. Now if by your question in kind, you mean that I should accept your renditions of what Catholicism teaches, I've studied the Catholic teachings for fourty years. I know when someone is not telling the truth about it.

Blessings

So are your disagreeing with me when I say that the Roman Catholic church believes in TRANSUBSTANTIATION. or are you saying the Roman Catholic church no longer teaches this doctrine? I'm confused at my error or your opinion. I'm clearly saying that Bible believing Evangelical Fundamentalists do not believe that either the bread nor the grape juice turns into the flesh or body of the LORD JESUS CHRIST either spiritually or materially. I accept a remembrance ceremony as the Orthodox view. I've been an Evangelical for at least 40 plus years and I can tell when someone is uncomfortable discussing a belief system one is uneasy with....

 

[thessalonian]

Not saying that the Catholic Church does not teach transubstantiation. Nowhere did I indicate that was your error. You say that by transubstantiation we are recrucifying Christ over and over again. We do not teach that and you don't beleive it is possible. It is simply a straw man you are knocking over. There is no religion I know of that teaches it so you should drop it from your repitroire of Catholic arguements. We reee-present the ONE sacrifice of Christ's death on the cross in the Eucharist. It is not another sacrifice or multiple resacrifices but ONE ETERNAL SACRIFICE. Until you grasp this you will not be dealing with Catholicism but will be dealing with a non-existent religoin. I don't know, maybe there is a protestant sect that does in fact think they can resacrifice Christ over and over again but Catholicism does not.

I am quite comfortable with transubstantiation by the way. Please see my new thread on the Eucharist in this very forum. :-D

 

[LittleNipper]

Not saying that the Catholic Church does not teach transubstantiation. Nowhere did I indicate that was your error. You say that by transubstantiation we are recrucifying Christ over and over again. We do not teach that and you don't beleive it is possible. It is simply a straw man you are knocking over. There is no religion I know of that teaches it so you should drop it from your repitroire of Catholic arguements. We reee-present the ONE sacrifice of Christ's death on the cross in the Eucharist. It is not another sacrifice or multiple resacrifices but ONE ETERNAL SACRIFICE. Until you grasp this you will not be dealing with Catholicism but will be dealing with a non-existent religoin. I don't know, maybe there is a protestant sect that does in fact think they can resacrifice Christ over and over again but Catholicism does not.

I am quite comfortable with transubstantiation by the way. Please see my new thread on the Eucharist in this very forum. :-D

So Biblically, is the officiating priest obligated to finish off any left over sacrificial wine or may it be simply dumped down the sink. I'm comfortable with dumping it down the sink. If you are not, then perhaps you place more reverence in something that is not even the body of CHRIST.

 

[ZeroTX]

So Biblically, is the officiating priest obligated to finish off any left over sacrificial wine or may it be simply dumped down the sink. I'm comfortable with dumping it down the sink. If you are not, then perhaps you place more reverence in something that is not even the body of CHRIST.

We ensure that all of the Blessed Sacrament (Christ's Body and Blood) are consumed. Since it is, in fact, the Body and Blood of Christ, we certainly would not pour it down the drain. In fact, there is a very reverent and specific procedure for cleaning the vessels used as well.

Which Biblical issue are you trying to decipher? The fact that Christ told us to do this or the Scripture where Christ tells us that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood (not representations of his blood)? It is something that is hard to grasp and believe. It's faith. Christ said it was a "hard teaching" and something that many refused to believe and they walked away....

Can you give me an example of any early Christian leader or group (during the first 1,500 years of Christianity) who DID NOT believe that the bread and wine truly became the Body and Blood of Christ?... Give it a shot.

What do you think Martin Luther believed?...

-Michael

 

[ZeroTX]

For those who believe the Bible is the one, only, singular and final authority in all matters (and no visible Church is necessary): Where do the words/phrases "Jesus Christ as your Personal Savior" or "Born-Again, Bible-believing Christian" or "Faith Alone" or "Scripture Alone" appear anywhere together in the Bible?....

Where in the Bible does it prescribe the form of worship and how it should be done? Where did the idea come from to build a church in a certain way, say, with a steeple, with two rows of pews with an aisle down the middle, to have songs, Bible-reading and a sermon, followed by an offeratory and a closing prayer? Where does the bible suggest having an annual Christmas pageant or even suggest the DATE of Christmas or Easter?... Do you suppose these things came from the "evil T-word".... tradition?... Where does tradition come from?... Who passes it along? Who decides what warrants a good tradition vs. one that should not be used?... Do you suppose there was authority that oversaw the development of tradition? Do you suppose that it might be so? Do you suppose that there might actually be beliefs that are very much true, yet aren't explicitly stated in the Bible? Do all of your beliefs come from SPECIFIC statements in the Bible? Do you suppose any of them come from tradition or moral code developed over time?...... Do you suppose that the unified church that existed prior to the reformation might have been responsible for passing on and developing traditions in accordance with Christ's teachings and the Scriptures? Where did the Bible come from?... Did King James' hired translators decide which books should go in there... or had they already been decided?.... by who? By what authority?...

Study, into the greatest depths, the history of your church, denomination... when you hit the dead end.... go further... where does it take you?

-Michael

 

[thessalonian]

So Biblically, is the officiating priest obligated to finish off any left over sacrificial wine or may it be simply dumped down the sink. I'm comfortable with dumping it down the sink. If you are not, then perhaps you place more reverence in something that is not even the body of CHRIST.

Not to be disrespectful but I would have no problem pouring half empty glasses of wine in your church down the sink. It is symbolic of the Lord as you believe and I will not be overly critical of that. It is quite appropriate to dispose of mere wine down the sink. I can understand why you would. Yet you fail to make any kind of a reasonable arguement as to why Jesus words "my flesh is true food...my blood is true drink" should not be taken in a more serious fashion than just symbolic. If he means that the Eucharist is in fact him (and it is) then the Lord's Supper definitely requires a higher level of reverence than mere bread and wine. The Jews in john 6 could not see that Christ is God and so they had him crucified. I am not in favor of pooring his precious blood down the sink and no I am not in the slightest being overly reverent in this. It is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Thomas bowed before Christ's phyical body and said "my lord and my God.". This was not too much reverence. Neither is any I can show the Eucharist.

 

[francisdesales]

So, I would imagine that based on your view, that you understand the 6 Day Creation and the FLOOD to be entirely factual but above human understanding.

The subject of the Eucharist and Creation/Flood stories are not related. When interpreting Scriptures, we FIRST look to the literal sense, understanding that God ALSO may have placed spritual meanings through the writer's words. Some verses, however, can be ruled out to be literal interpretations, based on literary genre or other discoveries that rule out such interpretations. For example, I PERSONALLY, do not believe that the earth was formed in six, 24 hour periods. The Catholic Church does not hold me to a literal interpretion of this. However, the Catholic Church DOES say that we interpret the Last Supper words and John 6 as literally spoken and understood.

We are speaking of two different things. Every verse is not interpreted the exact same way.

I believe that many Roman Catholics accept Transubstantiation. I do not accept this as truth. That is my understanding of the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist. It would seem contrary to the Roman Catholic view of Noah's FLOOD and the story of Adam & Eve when the Roman Catholic weighs scientific opinion.

At one time, the vast majority of the Church accepted a literal 6 day creation, although even with Origen and St. Augustine, they ALSO saw spiritual meanings behind the writings. The first clue, of course, is the FACT that the two creation accounts differ. Thus, they CANNOT be taken as literally meant by God. The order of creation is vastly different. Does this make the Scripture in error? Not at all. God used the writer's knowledge to say what HE, God, wanted to say. God was not giving us a scientific treatise on creation - as if ancient man would be able to understand it - but a story that told how God created man out of love to know Him, love Him and serve Him. THIS is God's message in Genesis. And it has little to do with how to interpret John 6 as they have little to do with each other. Different authors wrote these writings, each using their own style and literary genre. The Gospels are narratives based on theological principles. They are trustworthy historically. As you say, the Catholic Church respects scientific knowledge, taking their theories and laws into account when interpreting Scriptures. Realizing that God approaches mankind where he is at mentally, deeper meaning of Scriptures are revealed because of our scientific knowledge of the beginnning of time. Thus, the Church does not, nor has ever said that the Creation was finished in 6 literal 24 hour days.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I'm clearly saying that Bible believing Evangelical Fundamentalists do not believe that either the bread nor the grape juice turns into the flesh or body of the LORD JESUS CHRIST either spiritually or materially. I accept a remembrance ceremony as the Orthodox view. I've been an Evangelical for at least 40 plus years and I can tell when someone is uncomfortable discussing a belief system one is uneasy with....

Clearly, your opinion is NOT orthodox. All one must do is read the writings of the first Christians, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and so forth. Orthodoxy was established in the first centuries of Christianity, not 1600 years later.

Regards

 

[LittleNipper]

For those who believe the Bible is the one, only, singular and final authority in all matters (and no visible Church is necessary): Where do the words/phrases "Jesus Christ as your Personal Savior" or "Born-Again, Bible-believing Christian" or "Faith Alone" or "Scripture Alone" appear anywhere together in the Bible?....

Where in the Bible does it prescribe the form of worship and how it should be done? Where did the idea come from to build a church in a certain way, say, with a steeple, with two rows of pews with an aisle down the middle, to have songs, Bible-reading and a sermon, followed by an offeratory and a closing prayer? Where does the bible suggest having an annual Christmas pageant or even suggest the DATE of Christmas or Easter?... Do you suppose these things came from the "evil T-word".... tradition?... Where does tradition come from?... Who passes it along? Who decides what warrants a good tradition vs. one that should not be used?... Do you suppose there was authority that oversaw the development of tradition? Do you suppose that it might be so? Do you suppose that there might actually be beliefs that are very much true, yet aren't explicitly stated in the Bible? Do all of your beliefs come from SPECIFIC statements in the Bible? Do you suppose any of them come from tradition or moral code developed over time?...... Do you suppose that the unified church that existed prior to the reformation might have been responsible for passing on and developing traditions in accordance with Christ's teachings and the Scriptures? Where did the Bible come from?... Did King James' hired translators decide which books should go in there... or had they already been decided?.... by who? By what authority?...

Study, into the greatest depths, the history of your church, denomination... when you hit the dead end.... go further... where does it take you?

-Michael

The is nothing wrong with traditions as long as they are not invisioned or glorified as GOD mandates. Traditions are man made to enable man to feel good or help with his focus at their best. At their worse, they turn people's focus from GOD and move it into the area of bring glory to man and his abilities, feelings, and works....