Finally A Choice

Many great points here. The only point I disagree with is that the war on terror is not being mismanaged from Washington. I believe it is, and it is handcuffing our military, jeopardizing our soldiers, just like Viet Nam. This refusal to accept military victory, as a goal, is as integral a part of the Democrat party line, as is the right to abortion on demand.

 

You need to re-read the statement.

 

Brownback has too many weaknesses, and his record in Congress is erratic at best on social issues. I don't think he has much of a chance at the party nomination.

 

I'm not arguing his political leanings, only that the Democrats non stop demonizing of him, has greatly influenced his decision making and effectiveness in leadership.

 

Then he isn't much of a leader to be so easily swayed by criticism by his political opponents.

 

The statement is quite clear. My point is quite clear. Anyone who believes only one denomination is going to heaven has a screw loose. As to me needing to reread the statement, thanks but no. Based on other conclusions I have read of yours, I will stick to mine.

 

Brownback cannot revolt against the party that took him from nothing and helped him become a US Senator and then ask that same party to support his nomination. His tactics in supporting this resolution for the purpose of washing his hands and cloaking his actions are undermining the troops and the country that he says he supports. As Lady MacBeth found out, you cannot wash blood off of one's hands.

Brownback should switch parties and ask the Democrats to nominate him. President Bush won re-election because of his promise to fight and he is one of the few national politicians who are willing to fight.

Now, Hillclimber, I don't know how Bush has micromanaged this war but I am listening for any details that you, or Martin, can offer.

Meanwhile, I agree with Indiana Senator Lugar, a foreign policy specialist and several-times nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize that the Democrat resolution is not helpful (the understatement of the year).

The Arabs will see our cutting and running for what it is--another example of retreat when the price of victory becomes too high. If FDR had cut and run in the Pacific or in Europe, we would now be part of Germany, Italy, and Japan. FDR sustained extremely high costs. The Arabs right now are sustaining extremely high costs in an effort to conquer the world for Allah. If they can drive us out of Iraq, the Middle East will become the most heavily nuclearized area of the world and there will be no military power capable of stopping an atomic war. China might go to the trough to feed with Islam and China can lose tens of millions of soldiers and not even blink at the staggering loss of their own people. The USA cannot stand alone against Islam and China united and survive in any recognizable form. What is at stake is US credibility.

Brownback should switch parties.

 

I didn't mean to upset you. I just didn't think, based on your response, that you understood the statement that the Catholics believe everyone outside their church was hell bound.

 

Bologna, No one has acted more on his own conscience than GWB. But take the interrogation methods that were working so well. The bleeding heart liberal do gooders couldn't stand it so he was forced to allow change. The terrorists are still laughing at that.

 

[quote[The Catholic Church teaches that all non-Catholics go to hell.[/quote]

Well, coming from a guy who thinks Eisenhower and Nixon were democrats, I guess that's understandable.

Just so everyone knows, the Catholic Church does not teach that non-Roman Catholics go to hell.

Still, in another and broader sense of the term, which is also the more usual and is followed in the present article, Christendom includes not merely the Catholic Church, but, together with it, the many other religious communions which have either directly or indirectly, separated from it, and yet, although in conflict both with it and among themselves as to various points of doctrine and practice agree with it in this: that they look up to our Lord Jesus Christ as the Founder of their Faith, and claim to make His teaching the rule of their lives. As these separated communities when massed together, indeed in some cases even of themselves, count a vast number of souls, among whom many are conspicuous for their religious earnestness, this extension of the term Christendom to include them all has its solid justification. - Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15132a.htm

"The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God's word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize."

5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm

Notice that the Catholic Church not only sees other denominations as valid, it also accepts the fact that nonChristians who are sincerely seeking God can be saved.

God is greater than His church, and can save as He will.

 

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"Before Vatican II, the Church consistently taught that only Roman Catholics had a chance to be saved and attain Heaven. Followers of other Christian denominations and of other religions would be automatically routed to Hell for all eternity:"

Did someone rewrite the Bible to allow this change in thought?

Never mind. They had it wrong for how many centuries? What caused the change?

What other essential belief is likely to change in the future?
[/FONT]

 

VI. THE NECESSARY MEANS OF SALVATION


In the preceding examination of the Scriptural doctrine regarding the Church, it has been seen how clearly it is laid down that only by entering the Church can we participate in the redemption wrought for us by Christ. Incorporation with the Church can alone unite us to the family of the second Adam, and alone can engraft us into the true Vine. Moreover, it is to the Church that Christ has committed those means of grace through which the gifts He earned for men are communicated to them. The Church alone dispenses the sacraments. It alone makes known the light of revealed truth. Outside the Church these gifts cannot be obtained. From all this there is but one conclusion: Union with the Church is not merely one out of various means by which salvation may be obtained: it is the only means.
This doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms by Christ. Baptism, the act of incorporation among her members, He affirmed to be essential to salvation. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16). Any disciple who shall throw off obedience to the Church is to be reckoned as one of the heathen: he has no part in the Kingdom of God (Matthew 18:17). St. Paul is equally explicit. "A man that is a heretic", he writes to Titus, "after the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he that is such a one is . . . condemned by his own judgment" (Tit., iii, 10 sq.). The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven. It is true such acts could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware that God has commanded all to join the Church, and who nevertheless should willfully remain outside her fold. For love of God carries with it the practical desire to fulfill His commandments. But of those who die without visible communion with the Church, not all are guilty of willful disobedience to God's commands. Many are kept from the Church by Ignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy. To others the external means of grace may be unattainable. Thus an excommunicated person may have no opportunity of seeking reconciliation at the last, and yet may repair his faults by inward acts of contrition and charity.
It should be observed that those who are thus saved are not entirely outside the pale of the Church. The will to fulfill all God's commandments is, and must be, present in all of them. Such a wish implicitly includes the desire for incorporation with the visible Church: for this, though they know it not, has been commanded by God. They thus belong to the Church by desire (voto). Moreover, there is a true sense in which they may be said to be saved through the Church. In the order of Divine Providence, salvation is given to man in the Church: membership in the Church Triumphant is given through membership in the Church Militant. Sanctifying grace, the title to salvation, is peculiarly the grace of those who are united to Christ in the Church: it is the birthright of the children of God. The primary purpose of those actual graces which God bestows upon those outside the Church is to draw them within the fold. Thus, even in the case in which God Saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church's graces. They are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body. Yet the possibility of salvation apart from visible communion with the Church must not blind us to the loss suffered by those who are thus situated. They are cut off from the sacraments God has given as the support of the soul. In the ordinary channels of grace, which are ever open to the faithful Catholic, they cannot participate. Countless means of sanctification which the Church offers are denied to them. It is often urged that this is a stern and narrow doctrine. The reply to this objection is that the doctrine is stern, but only in the sense in which sternness is inseparable from love. It is the same sternness which we find in Christ's words, when he said: "If you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin" (John 8:24). The Church is animated with the spirit of Christ; she is filled with the same love for souls, the same desire for their salvation. Since, then, she knows that the way of salvation is through union with her, that in her and in her alone are stored the benefits of the Passion, she must needs be uncompromising and even stern in the assertion of her claims. To fail here would be to fail in the duty entrusted to her by her Lord. Even where the message is unwelcome, she must deliver it. It is instructive to observe that this doctrine has been proclaimed at every period of the Church's history. It is no accretion of a later age. The earliest successors of the Apostles speak as plainly as the medieval theologians, and the medieval theologians are not more emphatic than those of today. From the first century to the twentieth there is absolute unanimity. St. Ignatius of Antioch writes: "Be not deceived, my brethren. If any man followeth one that maketh schism, he doth not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walketh in strange doctrine, he hath no fellowship with the Passion" (ad Philad., n. 3). Origen says: "Let no man deceive himself. Outside this house, i. e. outside the Church, none is saved" (Hom. in Jos., iii, n. 5 in P. G., XII, 841). St. Cyprian speaks to the same effect: "He cannot have God for his father, who has not the Church for his mother" (De Unit., c. vi). The words of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Lateran (1215) define the doctrine thus in its decree against the Albigenses: "Una est fidelium universalis Ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur" (Denzinger, n. 357); and Pius IX employed almost identical language in his Encyclical to the bishops of Italy (10 August, 1863): "Notissimum est catholicum dogma neminem scilicet extra catholicam ecclesiam posse salvari" (Denzinger, n. 1529).


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

 

Can we get back on topic, please? Otherwise, this thread will be closed. If you want to discuss other denominations, please take it to the proper forum. Thanks.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator