Catholic Question: Can One Find Salvation Without the Sacraments?

Beam me up Scottie!

What did you mean by Jesus or in Christ. Are you saying Jesus is different from Christ???

Since you don't believe Jesus Christ is all you need for salvation, let me ask another question. Do you believe Jesus Christ is God and was manifested in the flesh and dwelt among us?

 

I agree with you. However, you would have been more correct to say 'Christian' instead of 'Catholic'. All true believers have it tough in today's world.

Though, it is worth noting that you seemingly wished to use '21st c. American culture' to imply Christianity and being Catholic is hard in Christianity today. Though I would agree to some extent, this is an unfair statement. Unfair because you are trying to make a distinction in convictions between groups. This 'holier-than-thou' sentiment is rather unChristian.

I've been over this with several other catholics and have not yet recieved a answer. Want to try it?

You say:"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."

It has already been established that one must kneel to Rome on issues of faith and morals if one wishes to remain a faithful catholic. Thus, if one rejects some issues of faith and morals, one rejects christ because one rejects Rome.

Hypothetical(s) that isn't so hypothetical (one of many).

1. I reject Rome's doctrine on birthcontrol. I do so because I recognize the error in the interpretation of the story of Onan and I recognize the internal inconsistency of the position. Doing this, I have put myself against Rome. I 'know' what the church teaches and I 'know' why. Even so, I reject it.

Can I be saved? Can I get to heaven? (I am a Christian already)

2. A catholic does [1]

Common argument(s) you can not use for [1] and why not:

1. You cannot simply say I do not 'know' the fullness of truth of the catholic church. That does not address the issue presented. Further, it would be a slipperly slope argument (arguing that if I did something I would or would not do something else).

2. You cannot say 'yes, I can get to heaven' based upon the premise that I did not know something was wrong. This argument would be used to establish my wanting to do right by God, but my not doing it because of some misinformation or misteaching.

This cannot be used because then could argue that salvation comes by not knowing; now knowing the savior, not knowing right and wrong.

Further, this line of argument could actually be used to support abortion, murder, idolatry and hosts of other established sins.

In reality, this argument has merit, but I have ruled it out for this argument because I have shown that I 'know' the catholic teaching and I reject said teaching. Thus establishing my knowledge of the doctrine and my going against it.

Essentially, can a professing believer be saved if that believer willingly goes againts Catholic teachings for which said believer knows exactly why the teachings were established?

In Christ,
jason

 

Posted by Carson:

It is not the church's purposes to infallible truth. Revelation has ceased. Only the Word of God can give infallible Truth. What you claim is blasphemy. But then Jim Jones, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Sun Myoung Moon, Mohammed, and Charles Taze Russell, all claimed that they alone had the infallible truth. No one else before them had the truth. No one could be saved outside of their group. They teach exactly what the Catholic Church teaches--at least in principle. These are the marks of a cult. The Catholic Church fits very well.
They alone, as you say, claim to give perfect life to the human race. This is another heresy, as only Christ can do that. There is no superstitious power in the sacraments that gives the power of eternal life to anybody. Do you honestly thing that by eating a piece of bread I will gain eternal life. What foolishness is this! The foolishness of a cult. It is akin to Jim Jones cyanide. Spiritual suicide.
"She herself is the receiver of this truth." Wrong again. The apostles were. Revelation ceased at the end of the first century. We have a closed revelation, not an open revelation. The canon of Scripture was closed with the completion of the Book of Revelation around 98 A.D. There is nothing more to add.
DHK

[ November 11, 2002, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

Tuor,

This question has been aptly answered, and you answer it yourself in your question. "Knowing full well what the Catholic Church teaches" and then "rejecting it" is absolutely forfeiting your salvation, for you are giving up Jesus. If you know something to be true, and you reject it, you are a fool. The fact of the matter is that what people typically are rejecting is misconceptions, and their motives, however hostile, are good. They are rejecting proper evil, they simply have the wrong object (the Catholic Church and her teachings).

An example would be knowing that Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist, fully acknowledging that, and refusing to partake of it, or telling others that it is not true, when you yourself know it to be true. It would be to know that you should not partake of the Eucharist with mortal sin on your heart, but taking it anyway. "Knowing the truth and rejecting it."

You ask a question here, but in your later replies, you mix words up and ask new questions, and then say you've been condemned to hell. You can't do that and expect a logical debate. Your original question was answered, and you do not fall into the category as knowing the full truth and rejecting it, because you don't know the full truth.

Do not place yourself in condemnation when you have not been condemned.

God bless,

Grant

 

This is what I was talking about. This response is wholly unwarrented from your original question, because the people on this board clearly do not understand the truths Catholics present as truth, or we would not argue about them, and we would not be confusing definitions, and all of the other folly that occurs here.

There is no rejection of truth here (at least, I would say in the majority of people; I can't certainly speak for everyone's motives or beliefs). There is only rejection of misconceptions, for most of our arguing is parallel, not perpendicular. We come in with biases (both parties), and so we can't properly debate and answer quesions because we refuse to play on the same playing field.

God bless,

Grant

 

Tony,

Please do not imply that Catholics are stupid. The "sacraments" are necessary, but not all sacraments are necessary for each individual. It was pointed out in a later post that one cannot receive both sacraments of Holy Orders and Matrimony. It's not like Catholics have just coyly overlooked this for 2000 years. If one wishes to be in union in marriage, he NEEDS the sacrament of matriony. If one is to be a sharer in the priesthood of Christ, the Great High Priest, he NEEDS the sacrament of Holy Orders. And one can die without receiving the Annointing of the Sick; it is merely preferable, and a very much beneficial sacrament.

The sacrament of Baptism IS necessary for salvation, according to the Catholic Church, and to be fully received into the Catholic Christian faith, Confirmation and the Eucharist complete this cycle. This is what is meant by the "fullness of salvation" being found in the Catholic Church.

One, of course, can still be saved outside of the sacraments, by implicit desire or otherwise. Do not, I beg of you, take single sentences out of a 900 page book and try to explain away a faith.

God bless,

Grant

 

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.</font>[/QUOTE]Psalm,

No, it's rididulous that you will spread hatred for a faith that you so willingly do not attempt to understand. You assume that I am stupid and do not understand the nature and requirements of the sacraments, and that for 2,000 years, the scholars and theologians of the Church have merely overlooked this funny little seven-sacrament loophole, and they hoped no one else would ever find it, for it would collapse the whole system!

No offense, but don't count your chickens before they hatch. I ask God to grant you the wisdom to properly study a subject before you ridicule it as you just did.

God bless,

Grant

 

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</font>[/QUOTE]DHK,

Your arguments work so well because you insert words that make them work. No one ever claimed the Magesterium of the Church "takes" the place of Christ. The only quote that is used over and over by you guys is the one from Pope Leo, in which he states he "holds" the place, not "takes" it. For one who holds does so temporarily, and one who takes does so permanently.

Your argument is built around a lie. Do not insert words that have no place. If you continue to do so, you are not a man of God, for no man of God would willfully deceive in order to prove his case.

God bless,

Grant

 

If the person was truly exposed to the truth, and they reject this as truth, then you are correct. If they have been taught that Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist (for instance), body and blood, soul and divinity, and they reject this, then yes. If they never fully grasped what was being taught, and they leave the Church, that is most certainly not the same thing.

You're a smart guy; you should be seeing this.

God bless,

Grant

 

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</font>[/QUOTE]Tuor was correct when he said that proof-texting here is meaningless except that it means "my interpretation is right and yours is wrong." This holds no value, DHK, outside of your own set of beliefs as to what is being said in the Words.

God bless,

Grant

 

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</font>[/QUOTE]While God's Word is certainly found in written form, God never said it was limited to that, and no Bible verse has ever demonstrated that. It is a belief that you pick up implicitly from the Bible, which requires extra-Biblical faith in and of itself.

I'm paying full attention, by the way. I can't help it that you refuse to pay attention to Carson and I, regardless of how you feel about our beliefs.

God bless,

Grant

 

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</font>[/QUOTE]DHK,

You just stated that speaking in tongues and prophecy, during the time when revelation was still open, was just that: revelation. By doing so, you openly admit that God's Word was transferred not merely by written word, but orally, which makes a perfect valid case for the Tradition of the Church, those teachings taught by the Apostles of Christ and carried forth throughout history.

Thanks.

God bless,

Grant

 

They are not needed for salvation, no. Baptism is needed for obedience and marriage vows are needed for marriage, but neither are needed for salvation.

Christ Jesus is everything. He is all any of us NEED.</font>[/QUOTE]It is our need and trust in Jesus Christ that leads us to His most holy gifts, His sacraments, in which he offers to us immeasurable graces; all we have to do is say "AMEN!" and receive His gifts in faith and love.

God bless you, and I hope you too will one day rejoice in the sacraments offered to YOU by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Grant

 

Then stop debating, DHK. Simply say, "Read your Bible, Grant," and go about your business. Based on your words, you have no right to add to the Word of God with your preaching, for you could say nothing that is not already evident in Scriptures, and thus, your words are futile, and quite frankly, perverse, for they take me away from God's Word in the Scriptures!

God bless,

Grant

 

Wanna bet "they aren't listening"? I'm listening. Not talking much, but listening. But yes Carson, get your studing done.</font>[/QUOTE]Brother Adam,

I'm aware that you are listening, and I'm sure Brother Ed is aware also. I'm sure he was referring to those who take our messages in one ear and out the other without digesting what we're saying, and instead, throwing back the original question as if it wasn't answered, or then adding more and more questions until the original idea is lost.

God bless,

Grant