Salvation outside of the Catholic Church : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

David Palm I have just read an article you wrote concerning salvation outside of the church. I read other articles and excerpts from Papal encyclicals explaining the idea of salvation of non-Catholics, even non-christians. It is certainly obvious that a development or laxity has occurred. How is salvation achieved through the Church without faith in Christ? What is this Spirit of Christ found in non-christian communities? This is very difficult and smacks against absoluteness. What about narrow is the way? Many will come , few will enter. I can understand perhaps easier that a poor soul that has not heard the gospel can through Christ's mercy attain salvation, but the fact that Hindu's, Jews and pagans can hear the gospel and not respond and still be saved destorys the work of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. Thier hearts are already hardened. How can simply good works (life) attain salvation through the Spirit of Christ without belief in Him? If they hear and don't respond for any reason it is rejection caused by blindness Is the church really saying that they can't be sure if such people are saved?.

-- Pamela (, February 22, 2000


Hello, Pamela.

Having waited four days patiently with you for Mr. Palm's return, I couldn't resist posting something on this subject. I hope that you will forgive me for not waiting any longer for Mr. Palm.

The concept of salvation of non-Christians is definitely not new nor a "laxity" nor a recent "development" of doctrine.

From St. Justin Martyr, around 151 A.D. ...
"We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Gk, "logos"] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. ... Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid" (First Apology 46).

Worth exploring at the Catholic Answers site is:
"The Salvation of Non-Catholics"[Click here]

I have to risk some closing comments too ... We have to be careful about obstinately clinging, especially publicly, to an opinion on this subject that contradicts the Church, lest we put ourselves out of communion with her -- as Father Feeney and his followers did (around 1950, I think).

I hope that you have been able to see the very kind and gentle priest, Fr. Augustine Mary Hedderman, a Franciscan who celebrates Mass on EWTN TV frequently. Despite his gentleness, he "makes no bones" about this subject, writing: "To blatantly deny the living authority of the magisterium of the Church in order to foist one's own interpretation of past statements of popes is the making of heresy. The Church is the sacrament of salvation for the entire world and this is what the Church means when she says, 'Outside the Church there is no salvation.' We can also say, without Jesus no one will be saved. Yet that does not exclude those who through no fault of their own do not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, or that Jesus is God and the Savior of the whole human race."

Put a bit differently by Msgr. James O'Connor: "For those who through no fault of their own are ignorant of all or part of God's saving plan in Christ, their efforts to live a good life in cooperation with grace and according to the dictates of conscience is to be seen as an implicit desire for union with Christ ..."

Those (Hindus, Jews, etc.) who hear the gospel but do not accept it are not automatically damned. [I realize that you are particularly concerned about them, Pamela.] The Church teaches us that the Holy Spirit does not force a non-Christian to accept the Gospel that is preached to him. God respects the workings of a non-Christian's intellect, free will, and conscience, and He is aware that a lifetime of anti-Christian indoctrination is usually not automatically overcome simply by hearing a Christian say that his is the only true religion or even by reading the New Testament. Other factors that often influence a non-Christian's rejection of the gospel are his knowledge of (and sometimes personal experience of) horrible conduct on the part of Christians, as well as the scandal of disunity among Christians. All these things contribute to the "invincible ignorance" -- a sort of "blind spot" -- that excuses some non-Christians' decisions against conversion, provided they are deciding with a clear (though malformed) conscience.

As Pope Pius IX stated almost 140 years ago, "It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin" (Encyclical 'Quanto conficiamur moerore,' 1863).

As theologian Colin Donovan writes, inadvertently answering one of your questions, "So, in the end we [each Catholic and the Church as a whole] simply do not know about the state of those who die without baptism and so, while entrusting them to the mercy of God, we continue to evangelize ..." -- hoping that their stumbling blocks may thereby be removed.

God bless you always. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (, February 26, 2000.

Thank you for your response. I am wondering though, the church does not really say one is saved or not outside of the Christian faith. They always say may be saved. If a false religion is believed and nurtured , it is very possible that practicing a false religion can cause the power of evil to overtake a soul totally. I am especially thinking about the Hindu religion and related New age. These are polytheist in nature and often summon ascended masters (evil spirits). Many of these religions also claim the god within such as powers and magic. Many are so entrenched in the darkness of evil, but they see all of this an if it were an angel in white. Explain how we accept these reilgions as valid without diminshing the validity and necessity of our church. Shouldn't we tell them that they are in peril and possible under the strong influence of evil? Pamela

-- Pamela (, February 26, 2000.

Hi, Pamela.

I think that you and I are going to have a meeting of the minds. { 8^D)
You wrote, "Explain how we accept these religions as valid without diminshing the validity and necessity of our church. Shouldn't we tell them that they are in peril and possible under the strong influence of evil?"

The answer to your question is, "Yes, we should tell them."

As Catholics, we should not accept Hinduism, the New Age religion, etc., as "valid" -- to use your term. We know that, although they contain some elements of truth, they contain a great deal of error. As Catholics, we are required to advocate a state-guaranteed "freedom" for people to practice a false religion -- but we cannot state that people have a "right" to practice a false religion. A "right" is not given to people by the government nor by majority rule. A "right" is something given by God and is a privilege to which He entitles a person. God would never entitle a person to full or partial falsehood, but only to the pure truth.

Let me see if I can re-state my ideas in other words:
(1) Respect for a person's dignity requires a Catholic to allow each citizen a "liberty" to follow his (erroneous) conscience, if he is convinced that Xxxxx-ism is truth.
(2) Respect for the truth requires a Catholic to believe, and to state openly, that Xxxxx-ism teaches lots of falsehoods and that Catholicism teaches only the truth and all of the truth.
(3) Thus the only religion that people have the God-given "right" to practice is Catholicism, because it is the only religion that teaches the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As I've heard it stated, "One does not have the right to believe wrongly."

I hope that this helps us see eye-to-eye.
God bless you. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (, February 27, 2000.

It is with interest that I read some of the material on display regarding the absolutely crucial and defined dogma;Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. That's right.There is no salvation outside the Church. It has been defined ex cathedra three times by different Popes.It is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Scripture says "Without faith it is impossible to please God." Our Lord warned those who do not believe of their peril. So-called Catholics today deny that this dogma says what it means and means what it says. They want God on their terms. They want God to save the "ignorant" man on the desert island. What they are saying in effect, is that God set up a Church with baptism and the other sacraments in order that men may be saved, but He also allows others to be saved because He bends His own rules. Before Vatican II Catholics were aware of the three levels of the Church. the Church Truimphant (in heaven) the Church Suffering ( in purgatory) the Church Militant (on earth) Notice that non-membership in the Church excludes a human from being on the path to salvation, if this description of the church is to be believed. No serious scholar will argue that the Church always preached salvation for non-catholics. Those who claim non- catholics can be saved, do so by appealing to a "new" "evolved" way of thinking, or of the Church "becoming more aware of previous teachings." i have not got the time at the moment to expand and provide proper evidence but I will do shortly. It is a hard dogma, today almost an embarressing one. It does not sit well alongside the so-called ecumenism we witness. But God is Justice. And He has laid down the Law. To see Him in paradise you must believe in Him and Love Him. God knows what He is doing. Nobody deserves heaven. We all deserve to be damned but in His mercy, God sent His only Son so that we may come to full knowledge of the truth and be saved. This can only happen if you are a Catholic.

-- Marek Handzel (, February 28, 2000.

Marek Handzel writes:

"So-called Catholics today ... are saying in effect ... that God set up a Church with baptism and the other sacraments in order that men may be saved, but He also allows others to be saved because He bends His own rules."

This is not correct. God binds humans to follow rules and sacraments that He gives, but He Himself is not constrained by those rules and sacraments. He can save by means that seem extraordinary to us. He does not "bend" rules.

Marek again: "No serious scholar will argue that the Church always preached salvation for non-catholics.

Of course, Marek will be the one to "proclaim" whether or not any given scholar is "serious"!!! It does not take a scholar to intervene, anyway. One need only read the second-century words of St. Justin, quoted above, to realize that the Church has always known that it is possible for a non-Christian to be saved.

But one should not think that we adhere to "religious indifference." As Catholics, we do not want people to remain in the errors of Protestantism or non-Christianity, and we must do what we can to get them out of those errors. We realize that their chances of being saved -- and especially of coming to greater sanctification through the Eucharist, etc. -- are almost immeasurably enhanced by becoming Catholics. We realize that non-Catholics who are saved come to that state in spite of -- not because of -- their non-Catholicism. They are saved because God, who is all-powerful, can determine that they would have become Catholics if they had heard and been convinced that Jesus founded the Catholic Church as His instrument for salvation.

Marek again: "I have not got the time at the moment to expand and provide proper evidence but I will do shortly."

This is a free country, so Marek may add more unreliable opinions (surely not "proper evidence") if he wishes. However, he ought not to waste our time and his, especially since doing so endangers his soul. This is a site for genuine Catholicism, not for Feeneyism nor for Sedevacantism -- two major heresies of our time. It is quite clear from multiple Catholic Church sources, including the new Catechism, that the salvation of some non-Catholics Christians and some non-Christians is an infallible teaching (by the "ordinary magisterium"). This fact is made even clearer by the knowledge that Feeneyite heretics have been excommunicated for the last half-century. According to Canon Law, if Marek is "contumacious" (stubbornly disobedient) in publicly rejecting this teaching, dangerously trying to lead good Catholics to doubt this article of faith, and if he defies a warning from his bishop to cease in his error, he can be excommunicated.

Let us pray for Marek.

-- J. F. Gecik (, February 28, 2000.

Thank you for your response, J.F.G. Here is the evidence. COUNCIL OF TRENT; "If anyone shall say that baptism is free, that is, NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, let him be ANATHEMA."

"If anyone says that TRUE AND NATURAL WATER is not necessary in Baptism, and therefore interprets metaphorically the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...": LET HIM BE ANATHEMA."

"He who believes and is baptised shall be saved, but HE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE SHALL BE CONDEMNED." Mark 16:16

"We can no more pray for a deceased infidel than we can for the devil, since they are condemned to the same ETERNAL AND IRREVOCABLE DAMNATION." Pope St. Gregory I

"The most Holy Roman church BELIEVES, PROFESSES AND TEACHES that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, NOT ONLY PAGANS, BUT ALSO JEWS AND HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS, can have a share in eternal life, but that they will go into the everlasting FIRE prepared for the devil and his angels unless before death they shall have entered into that Church." Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence.

The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:"IT IS NOT ALLOWED TO AFFIRM THAT CONFUCIUS WAS SAVED. CHRISTIANS, WHEN INTERROGATED, MUST ANSWER THAT THOSE WHO DIE AS INFIDELS ARE DAMNED."


"Without faith, it is impossible to please God." Hebrews 11: 6

"Many will be damned; few will be saved." St. Benedict Joseph Labre

"It is granted to FEW to recognise the True Church amid the darkness of so many schisms and heresies and to fewer still so to love the truth which they have seen as to fly to its embrace... I believe that for the good Christians there is eternal life full of every happiness and free from every sort of evil; as, on the contrary, FOR THE INFIDELS AND FOR THE BAD CHRISTIANS there is eternal death full of every misery and deprived of every good." St. Robert Bellarmine

In his Encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII declared; "Some reduce to a MEANINGLESS FORMULA the necessity of belonging to the True Church in order to gain salvation.."

"But the unity of the Church exists primarily because of the unity of the faith; for the Church is nothing else than the aggregate of the faithful. And because without faith it is impossible to please God, for this reason there is NO ROOM for salvation outside the Church." St. Thomas Aquinas, DOCTOR.

"Without this confession, WITHOUT THIS FAITH, no one can enter the kingdom of heaven." St. Bede

If more is needed to convince anybody, then more can be provided. Much more. It is defined dogma. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. It means what it says and it says what it means. Truth is Truth. Case closed.

-- Marek Handzel (, February 29, 2000.

I suppose, Marek Handzel, that it is better than you returned here to err again, because if you stay away, you have no opportunity to read the truth.

The saddest part about your most recent post is that you had no comment concerning my statement on the subject of contumacious heretical statements. I can only take it, from your silence, that you have already been excommunicated or that you don't care about the fact that you are endangering yourself -- ironically on the verge of cutting yourself off from the sacraments and potentially putting yourself on the road to hell, at the very same time that you are damning other people left and right.

Indeed, we must pray all the more fervently for your conversion.

Your error is apparent from your very first words, which were: "Here is the evidence." It is not within your rights or your capabilities to establish a courtroom in which you present "evidence" -- neither inside your mental exercises, nor in your private writings, nor in this public forum. You are neither able nor permitted to put souls on trial, so that you may tell us which of our fellow men are headed for heaven or hell. Nor are you able or permitted to put Pope John Paul II, the Magisterium of today, or the Fathers of Vatican II on trial, so that you may tell us that they are heretical, breaking away from Sacred Tradition, contradicting prior Catholic doctrine, etc.. If you should try to do such things that are not within your rights and capabilities, you are likely to commit grave sins of pride and heresy.

You have presented numerous quotations from Councils, popes, and saints -- quotations that you imagine support your heterodox belief. Amazingly, you have failed to realize that every one of these quotations was/is familiar to the Fathers of Vatican II and to the present shepherds of the Magisterium -- and they correctly see NO conflict between these quotations and the orthodox doctrine presented in the new Catechism of today (the doctrine that I have been trying to present in this thread).

Marek, you closed with these words: "If more is needed to convince anybody, then more can be provided. Much more. It is defined dogma. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus [hereinafter "EENS"]. It means what it says and it says what it means. Truth is Truth. Case closed."
Yes, the case is closed, and you lost it. [According to the ancient saying, "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" = "Rome (John Paul II) has spoken, and the case is closed."] I could show you how you have misunderstood all the quotations you have given, but I do not have sufficient free time (so please don't add any more quotations!). When you state that "EENS" means what it says and says what it means, you are showing yourself to be analogous to a Fundamentalist Protestant -- in that you believe that anyone, without guidance, can interpret a difficult or controversial statement. The fact is that you need to humble yourself to accept the current Magisterium's guidance to understand "EENS" just as much as a Fundamentalist needs to humble himself to accept the Magisterium's guidance to understand difficult and controversial biblical passages. If you think you are a Catholic, but you will not be submissive, you certainly have no right to expect non-Catholics to be submissive.

Marek, your downfall in all this is your ignorance (or rejection?) of the Church's doctrine of Baptism of Desire. The new Catechism's paragraph 1260 speaks of this as follows: "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.' Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."

The old (1913) Catholic Encyclopedia, noted for its strict orthodoxy, tells us:
"The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): 'He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.' And again: 'If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.' Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent ... [wherein we read that no one can move from a state of original sin into a state of righteousness] 'except by the washing of regeneration or its desire.'"
The Church teaches us that this "desire" can be expressed either explicitly or implicitly. I hope that it was ignorance, rather than deception, Marek, that led you to quote Trent selectively, ignoring the above-cited passage.

If a reader of this thread keeps in mind all the principles I have explained in my current and previous posts, especially the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire, he/she can properly read all or your (Marek's) quotations from popes, councils, etc., and realize that there is indeed provision for non-Catholics, even non-Christians, to be saved.

To illustrate this now, I will write about just one of the quotations you provided (and I will remove the impolite, SHOUTING, upper-case letters that you used): "The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote: 'It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned.'"

Notice how carefully this (and all other passages you quoted) are worded. Not only can we not "affirm" that Confucius was saved, but also we cannot "affirm" that he was damned -- because we are not qualified to judge whether or not he was an "infidel" when he died. Furthermore, it is for the Church's Magisterium (pope and united bishops) -- not for us private laymen, priests, or religious -- to explain who can be considered an "infidel." The Magisterium has now clearly explained this, and you appear to be in grave error by rejecting (as would a heretic) the Magisterium's authority.

Marek, here is one final note ... You made the mistake of quoting several saints, such as the following:
"Many will be damned; few will be saved." St. Benedict Joseph Labre
Though this was a holy man, he was not a part of the Magisterium. Individual private statements of canonized saints are not guaranteed to be infallible. It is not helpful for you to quote his words in the context of this thread. Not only are his words not authoritative, but they do not even support your erroneous position! The saint's words do not tell us whether or not non-Christians may be among the "few."

May the Holy Spirit enlighten you (and all of us).

-- J. F. Gecik (, February 29, 2000.

I'm stumbled on this page by accident, and after reading the main topic and the subsequent answers I must say, that being a Chistian myself (Baptist) formally a Catholic,I'm rather dissapointed in the responses. If all of you were to come to my door and were to pose the material in your answers, lets say, each one of you at 2 week intervals, and try to lead me to Lord, I would be very confused, because your all saying a little something different on the same topic, and that makes a big difference. How can any of you expect to be an effective witness for Christ when you can't even stay on the same page. I must give credit at least to the mormon and the jehovah witness cults, and for this reason only, when they come knocking, they always present the same message. They have approached me on numerous times , always a different pair, and the message never varies. I think all of you need more time in the Word of God, instead of commentaries from different Popes, bishops etc. Also the Bible ( catholic or protestant ) specifically says that all believers, who are saved and have their sins washed in the blood of Christ are saints not just a few hundred or so. Baptism is another topic altogether, if each one of you were to do a study of the baptism ritual on your own, and forgetting for a few hours what you were taught, using just a Greek or Hebrew Lexicon, or different concordances and look up these passages and words, using them not only in singular word forms but also in context, your understanding might just change. And after doing so I would love to hear your thoughts. Like the Bible says, 2 Timothy 3:16 ---All scripture is given by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. So when you go to mass listen to the priest, or if you go to a bible study listen to the instuctor, but then check out what their saying . See if it coincides with Gods word, use the suggested books, I'm sure you probally have them already, don't just take anybodys teaching at face value.

a brother in Christ Maranantha

-- Tim Kusz (, March 02, 2000.

Hello, Tim Kusz.
Thanks for your comments. It is very unfortunate that you happened to read through the posts within this particular thread "Salvation outside of the Catholic Church." It so happens that an unfortunate debate is taking place here. Within the messages there are some people who are presenting genuine Catholics teaching on this subject and also there is one person (Marek) who believes that he is a Catholic but who is not presenting true doctrine.

You came here to a discussion board, not a place where simple and "straightforward" Catholic doctrine is presented -- without an admixture of error. This should not surprise you. If you are honest, you will admit that, even within your own religious body (Baptist), there are some people who would disagree strenuously among themselves. For example, some Baptists would hold that Catholics are Christians who may be saved, while others are fundamentalists who would claim that all Catholics are going to hell because they are not Christians. Since there is nothing near unanimity of belief among Baptists, it does not seem appropriate for you to post advice to non-Baptist Christians who disagree with each other. Perhaps you can go to a Baptist site to post advice there on achieving unity among Baptists?

I can tell that you are not familiar with what the Catholic Church teaches and that you are not aware that it is the only Christian church that Jesus founded 2,000 years ago. (If you had been truly familiar with these beliefs and aware of the history of Christianity, you would never have left the Catholic Church.)

Sadly, your ecclesial community does not hold some genuine truths of the Christian faith, while at the same time it holds some erroneous beliefs that have been relatively recently devised (i.e., within the past 500 years). Some of these errors are very evident within your post. I will send you the URLs of a couple of Internet sites, where you can become familiar with Catholicism. You will probably find every one of your questions and objections answered there.

May God bless and guide you.

-- J. F. Gecik (, March 02, 2000.


I find your last post to be very offensive. And i would agree with Tim. The RCC boldly says that it contains all truth and is "the church". The church has no walls it only has a foundation. It's foundation is the truth that JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. I guess by RCC teaching i am comdemmed to hell because i am not a member. See you there!

-- Michael (, March 03, 2000.

Michael, in criticizing me, you wrote: "I guess by RCC teaching i am comdemmed to hell because i am not a member."

Please do not read carelessly. I ask you to re-read all that I have written in this thread (skipping Marek's posts). You will see that I am the person who has fighting hard to show the possibility [not certainty, but possibility] of your being saved, despite the fact that you have not yet formally joined the Catholic Church.

Michael, you also wrote: "The church has no walls. It only has a foundation." By saying that the "church has no walls," you must be stating that Buddhists and Moslems can be members. But if you reply that only Christians are members of "the church," then you have just built a wall shutting out Buddhists and Moslems. If you can build that wall, then you are in no position to criticize others who explain that only certain Christians are formally members of the church Jesus founded (the Catholic Church).

God bless you (and held you not to be offended by the truth).

-- J. F. Gecik (, March 03, 2000.

Marek Handzel, is absolutely correct. What he wrote is True. Truth is absolute. Truth does not change.

J. F. Gecik, what you are writing about is what the revolution of Vatican II itself is spreading-full of ambiguous contradictions from that which has always been taught.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church is clear and precise, united and complete. It's Founder and Head is GOD Himself. Who is clear and precise, united and complete.

It wasn't until Vatican II (over thirty years ago), that tries to feed us sheep with the "Doctrines" of men...

Vatican II and it's ecumenism had scraped 1,962 years of Divine Truth to foster "dialogue" with false religions. Water down and kick out that which had sanctified generations and made great Saints, in order to pat each other on the back - your ok, I'm ok - "Human Dignity".

Human dignity is found only in God. That is, a soul in - Sanctifying Grace. United in Him, in His Truth, His Faith, His Church (Roman Catholic), His Sacraments, thus, either one is with Him, or against Him.

If it wasn't for Vatican II in changing the Divine Deposit in order to please the infidels and heretics, and implicitly encouraging them to stay where they're at, thus leaving them in their darkness, they could have embraced the Divine Light, for which every human was created for...Jesus Christ!

Certainly, this response is in no way exhausted, I will add, lastly, that if it wasn't for this "new" teaching of Vatican II, the above fallen away Catholic (now Baptist), would not find a division, contradiction, disunity, disharmony and the like, in the Bride of Christ! As well as, perhaps, he would not have fallen away from the one True "Ark" of Salvation.

Only in the workings of "men" can Satan enter, alter, disfigure, and destroy. Christ, in His crucifixion, was disfigured and called a liar. So too, His Bride, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, will go through(in it's faithful - Mystical Body), a crucifixion (suffering), a disfiguring (unrecognizing the one True Church), and will be called liars (persecuted for upholding what the Holy Spirit has always taught)!

I plead for Eternal Rome in all of it's Glorious Tradition.

If one is to look for Christ, then, one needs to look at the past. In so doing, with objectivity, hold fast to what has always been taught.

Blessed be God!

-- Reno (, March 03, 2000.

To those concerned...

Prelude... After submitting my last response, I remembered an above responder (forgot who), asked, why there was a silence toward his/her question...from another.

Tomorrow (3-4-00), I am canceling my AOL service. Which means, I will no longer be using the Internet - or connection to this board.

However, for those who thirst for objective Catholic Truth, there is a link: where you will find some answers.

Salvation is acquired in Humility...

Blessed be God!

-- Reno (, March 03, 2000.

After printing and re-reading this entire thread, I think there may be a misunderstanding.

That is: Two of the three aspects of the Catholic Doctrine - "Salvation outside of the Catholic Church" is being meshed together, when they need, for clarity, to be distinct from one another.

The three are: Baptism of Water, Baptism of Blood (Martyrdom), and Baptism of Desire.

Firstly, I must apologize to J.F. Gecik. It wasn't until your 4th response on this board you first used the words - "Baptism of Desire". Whereas, in your first response your "[Gk, "logos"]" was leading in another direction (?).

Yes, Baptism of Desire is a Roman Catholic Doctrine. However, J.F., you have some principles right, yet, they are mixed with the "new" doctrines of Vatican II. Which, through their teaching, it is causing much confusion (that's what began this thread). Perhaps, unknown to you, this ecumenism they are promoting, is destroying what has always been taught. Replacing it with a "version" that is pleasing and adaptable to non-Catholics for a common bond of the "human person"-that's Freemasonry.

Everything that had been taught pre-Vatican II, has been turned upside down, 180 degrees (literally). We now have a "new": Mass, Rubrics, Catechism, Bible, Canon Law, Sacraments, Definitions, Vocabulary, Hierarchy, "Tradition", a new Truth, well, out with the "old", what has been concocted - a NEW FAITH. That's right, a new Faith to please non-believers. All for ecumenism. And what's the fruit, other than Catholics leaving in confusion, the non-believers are still...NON-BELIEVERS.

So yes, J.F., Baptism of Desire is a Doctrine.

Marek, in reading his post, for what he has written, is absolutely correct in supporting - Baptism of Water. Which is the other aspect.

I didn't see anywhere in Marek's post, any mention or denial of "Baptism of desire". Which leads me to think, that, everyone was not on the same "page" (aspect). Which is OK. Let's thank God, with humility, this misunderstanding is brought open for us all. If I may, through Vatican II in all these "dramatic" changes, it has really caused unrest even amongst us...Catholics. By what spirit was the Council their fruits you shall know them...

-- Reno (, March 04, 2000.

Each Catholic who reads this thread has two choices of whom to trust:

(1) One can choose to trust ... Pope John Paul II, the universal shepherd of the Catholic Church, the vicar of Christ on earth, elected to his office in 1978 by the college of cardinals under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Having been one of the 2500 world bishops who attended the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council (1962 - 1965), our pope has joined the previous popes in stating that the Council was a great gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church and to the whole world. Everyone, including the pope, admits that some human actions taken within the Church after the Council may not have been the most prudent choices. But some corrections have been made, and others will follow. Among the mistakes, however, no one can include the new rite of the Mass, the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism. These are totally solid, valid, and dependable.

(2) Or one can choose to trust ... Marek and Reno, who appear to have joined the schimatic Society of St. Pius X or one of several even more misguided groups, such as the Society of St. Pius V. [Some of these incorrectly call themselves faithful Catholics, but have been excommunicated (or are very much in danger of being excommunicated) due to heresy.] One can only conclude from the posts of Marek and Reno that they believe that Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II were/are heretics and/or anti-popes. What follows is that they are not truly Catholics, but "Old Catholics" (who deny papal infallibility) or "sedevacantists" (who believe that the office of the papacy is vacant).

I cannot speak for any other Catholics here, but, given this choice, I will -- without a moment's hesitation -- trust Pope John Paul II and his successors. They follow St. Peter in having the authority to bind me, Marek, Reno, and all Catholics to believe the Catechism's doctrine, to follow Canon Law, and to recognize the validity of the 1975 Missal (new Latin rite of the Mass). Pope John Paul II and his predecessors and successors must also be trusted to carry out ecumenism in a way that is pleasing to God. It is unseemly and gravely prideful for a Catholic to publicly criticize the work of a pope in his reaching out to non-Catholics.

God bless you. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (, March 04, 2000.

My..My, J.F.,

You accuse Marek earlier of not reading thoroughly. Slow down...

Pope John Paul II is indeed the Pope! Who said he wasn't???

Pope's, themselves (and others), are NOT infallible! The Holy Spirit was promised to the see of Peter, NOT to the person of Peter. As a Human, they can err. Look at the Arian heresy (around 400 ad.), where the Pope and all the prelates fell - but one, St. Athanasius (Bishop of Alexandria). Pope John XXII in 1330 ad. erred, ... to name a couple. As you bounce back and forth in your post, you also recognize "mistakes". Yes, contradictions ARE obvious. If..."the Council was a great gift of the Holy Spirit...", why, then, "some corrections have been made, and others will follow." - The Holy Spirit does NOT make mistakes for "corrections to be made, and others will follow". No past Council had ever needed to make a correction(s)! In addition, such "mistakes" are NOT "totally solid". If the Pope, a Council, (or others), declares an article(s), with continuity what has always been taught, then, indeed we/I are bound to follow. If the Pope, a Council, (or others), teaches something different, in all prudence with what the Holy Roman Catholic Church supplies, I/we are NOT bound to follow - an error(s). e.g. pray with other religions and so on... By their fruits you shall know them... your Catholic Catechism (Council of Trent). It defines clearly the Popes' duty of office. As well as our own. Blind obedience is NOT Catholicism, J.F. Take the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the "new" Catechism side by side and you will see an obvious contradiction.

J.F. your judgment is one-sided. The SSPX is NOT excommunicated nor schismatic. Read the OBJECTIONS-(! Read BOTH sides! The liberals (the devil), wants to do away with what has ALWAYS been taught. Read, seek, ask, knock.

Your summarized "conclusion's and what follows" are way off!!! I invite you and others to read, seek, ask, knock. It appears that you do not know (or remember), what was always taught pre-Vatican II. If you did, you would see the obvious contradictions. However, I do understand and have compassion for anyone having a difficulty trying to understand what - IS, to what's - "new". The Pope, John Paul II, (and other positions of authority), in their present scandals (following Vatican II), i.e. 1986/1999 prayer meetings in Assisi, France, putting Jesus Christ equal with false religions. Putting Buddha on top of the Tabernacle. Joint declaration with heretics. And the list goes on... All in the name of Vatican II - ecumenism! No, I can NOT "trust" this. It doesn't mean the Pope is no longer Pope, that's not for me (a lamb) to decide. As humans can err, his, the Popes', action(s) in this doing, is from his person, not by the authority of the Chair.

Yes J.F., it is necessary to let non-Catholics know that these scandals have NEVER happened before, and are NOT supported. We must pray for our Superiors to come back and confirm their sheep in the bosom of Tradition. The Pharisee's, in our Lord's time, rebuked Him - the Divine Truth! Humans do make pastoral mistakes, regardless of position.

J.F., please, slow down. I am not against you. I am, in my Baptism, upholding what has always been taught. Please be at peace. Research what is discussed here. Before God, we are individuals responsible for our own, seek, ask, knock. Test all things-says our Lord. the truth.

God Bless you.

-- Reno (, March 04, 2000.

J.F. , Sorry if i confused you for another poster, by your remarks i do not think that i have. I do not suppose that a buddist or what ever is among those in the "church". Look up any religion claiming to be "Christian" and you will find one common denominator. It all starts with the simple words "I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God". That is the foundation, that is the truth, that is not papal succession. Those words are contrary to any religion who does not believe that Jesus is the son of God. Any man who claims those words now stands on the foundation and is the "church". That man now has the "keys" to heaven and has power to bind and loose. Notice the description of the new Jerusalem in Rev.21:12-14. What a remarkable sybolism that John sees.

-- Michael (, March 05, 2000.

"For God SO loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son; that WHOSOEVER believes in (trusts in, relies on) Him SHALL NOT perish, but have everlasting life." John 3: 16

You can't get simpler than that.

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matthew 15: 9

-- Connie (, March 05, 2000.

Good answer Connie! Thats it ,it's that simple!

-- Michael (, March 06, 2000.

Thanks, Mike and Connie.
But it is far, far from that simple.

I'm sure that there are people [not me, at this point in my life!] who have lots of time and skill to prepare a lengthy questionnaire for any two non-Catholic Christians to fill out -- concerning all significant matters of faith (doctrine) and morality (virtue/vice), I would say that the chances are at least 9,999 to 1 that the two people would disagree on several, perhaps many, items. There would very likely be at least one item on which the two people would so seriously disagree that each of them would begin to be concerned that the other may not actually be saved!

And that is why there needs to be unity in all matters of faith and morals -- a unity that can only exist if there is a single authoritative body of men, instituted by Jesus to interpret God's revelation without error and to apply it to new moral situations not raised in the Bible. Nowhere can we find this needed authoritative body except in the Catholic Church (i.e., the pope and the bishops united with him).

When a person rejects the pope's and Catholic bishops' teachings, he either operates without any certainty (because he admits he is fallible on every single issue) or he makes himself into his own "private pope" (believing himself to be infallible on all matters of faith and doctrine).

God bless you both.

-- J. F. Gecik (, March 06, 2000.

JFG, What is your deal Dude? You don't need a Pope or a Bishop to tell you how to live.God gave us The Bible.Read your Bible Dude.The instructions for life are right there.You are so defensive. It makes me feel that you are being covicted by The Holy Spirit that you are not always right. That you are infallible.Lets define the word Christian: one who follows Christ. Not :one who is Catholic. Catholic is just another Religion. God knows you by your heart. If Jesus is not in your heart God will not know you. My prayer, Father God, is that you draw JFG closer to you.Save him through your Son, my Lord and Savior , Jesus Christ. Gods Blessings Susan

-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (, October 12, 2000.

Susan: go the magnificent page written bu Chris Butler and find the answer to your questions about the Catholic Church:


-- Enrique Ortiz (, October 12, 2000.

Enrique, I was raised in the Catholic Church.I attended Catholic school till I was 16. I am not happy that the Pope has the nerve to say that only Catholics are going to heaven.The Bible does not say that. Do you believe that the Bible is the word of GOD.The only God, the one true God? By what authority does the Pope have the audacity to make such a remark. Enrique, I come from a family of 11 siblings. I am very concerned that they are listening to this Pope.I want them to know the TRUTH. I want you to know the Truth. challenge you to read the Bible. Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23,John 3:3,John 14:6,Romans 10:9-11. It'll only take 15 minutes tops.Do some research. Don't follow blindly. Susan

-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (, October 12, 2000.

Susan, your wrote:

Do you believe that the Bible is the word of GOD.The only God, the one true God?

Besides God, Jesus' Father, is there any other God? Of course not. Of course I believe that the Bible is the WORD OF GOD. And I believe what the Bible says:

a) that God sent His Son Jesus as our Savior. That Jesus didn't write anything, that He sent His Apostles to PREACH, NOT TO WRITE. That He gave them authority to teach.

b) That Jesus founded a Church. If I deny this I'd be denying the WORDS OF THE BIBLE.

c) That Peter was put as the head of the Church by Jesus Himself. If I deny this, I'd be saying that Jesus lied to us.

I COULD GO ON FOR HOURS. I've reading the Bible from the time I was a child, and whatever I believe today is not blindly accepted, but I know it from a fatihful reading of what God told me through His Word. The fact that HE USED THE PROPHETS AND THE APOSTLES to teach us, was His free and total decision, and I only have to accept what He decided.


-- Enrique Ortiz (, October 13, 2000.

Susan: I re-read the texts you mentioned, which, by the way , I have read time and again and they didn't shake my faith , on the contrary, they made me feel very comfortable being a Catholic.


-- Enrique Ortiz (, October 13, 2000.

This thread began with these words:

David Palm I have just read an article you wrote concerning salvation outside of the church. I read other articles and excerpts from Papal encyclicals explaining the idea of salvation of non-Catholics, even non-christians. It is certainly obvious that a development or laxity has occurred.

Pamela thinks that a "laxity has occurred" because the Papal Encyclicals speak about salvation of non-Catholics. So the Popes have taught that salvation can come to non-Catholics. The conditions have been very extensively explained in this thread and others.


-- Enrique Ortiz (, October 13, 2000.

Hi, Susan. Glad to see that you are on the "journey home."
Just a couple of "course corrections," though ...
You wrote: "I am not happy that the Pope has the nerve to say that only Catholics are going to heaven."
I assure you absolutely that the Pope has said nothing of the kind. If you think that he did, please produce the actual quotation here, so that we can become familiar with it. Or did you make the mistake of trusting an anti-Catholic person (e.g., a pastor, the media, etc.) who told you that's what the Pope said? (He said nothing of the kind, I promise you.)

I was really pretty shocked that you criticized me on this 8-month-old thread. If you had read everything I wrote carefully, you would have found that I worked very hard to stand up for the Catholic Church's teaching that non-Catholics CAN be saved.
OK. Looking forward to good posts from you in the future.
PS: Enrique has been giving you good, reliable information. Each of us would love to attend Mass with you some day. You must miss receiving Holy Communion.
PPS: Very nice surname and e-mail address you have ... "Shepherd" (the Good Shepherd) and "Magistro" (teacher, as in "Magisterium" -- the pope and his fellow bishops) and "heartwjesus" (perhaps you were devoted to the Sacred Heart of Jesus).

-- J. F. Gecik (, October 14, 2000.

Enrique, I would never want to shake your faith.I am not talking about faith. I'm talking about being all caught up in stuff that doesn't matter. It's good to know that you read the Bible daily. As I said before,my entire family is Catholic . Not one of them reads the Bible or even has a clue what it says. And I can only think of two other Catholics that I know who read the Bible on a regular basis, one is "Born Again" like me. And the other is a guy who is searching for Truth. What is your favorite verse? as I was reading this morning in John 1:14.."And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Isn't that beautiful!! As I read it ,my heart started beating faster, and my eyes filled with water and it just started flowing down my face. But I wasn't weeping, you know, like crying, it just flowed and there is this joy in my heart that is pouring out. That pretty much happens whenever I think about what Jesus has done for us.Anyway I just wanted to clarify..I'm not bashing Catholics. I just have a dislike for walls that separate people who basically have the same beliefs.I want to be as much like Jesus as humanly possible. He would never bash people, but He certainly told people when their actions were displeasing to the Father. Right.If you would ever be interested in hearing my testimony I would be willing to share it with you. God's Blessings and LOVE, Susan

-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (, October 14, 2000.

John(JFG), I am amazed by some of your statments. I have not missed receiving Holy Communion.I attend services at Trinity Interdenominational Church.There are people of every creed and color. We have a Communion service once a month during the morning service,and every Sunday evening.The Communion service is like being with Jesus.Hearing Him say "Take this bread, it is my body, this wine is the blood that I shed for you so that you can have eternal life."(Matthew 26:26-29) I went to Catholic church every day ,but Saturday,all through grade school and every Sunday till I was 19.I never felt so close to Jesus as I do now. Not only is He my Savior, He is my best friend. I read His Word every day. I know Him by His Word. He is the LORD of my life. I would love to have you and Enrique come to church with me.You see, I've been where you are, but you have never experienced what I'm talking about. And you are afraid to find out. You say you have the authoritative body of a pope and bishops to interpret Gods Word. The Holy Spirit does that for me.Plus I can count on my Pastor to preach only Truth, because he takes it straight from the Bible.I have blessed assurance of my salvation. Paul said in Romans 10:8-10 "For salvation that comes from Christ-which is what we preach-is already within easy reach of each of us;in fact,it is as near as our own hearts and mouths.For if you tell others with your own mouth that Jesus is your Lord, and believe in your own heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.For it is by believing in his heart that a man becomes right with God; and with his mouth he tells others of his faith, confirming his salvation. So, John , tell me who Jesus is to you. I have read some of your writing, and you come accross very "know it all". But I'm going to reread some and some I haven't. See if I can get a better handle on what you're about .. OK. I pray , Father God, that you open the eyes of Johns heart as he reads my note, for you are mighty and I trust you in all things. I ask in my sweet Jesus name.Amen. God Bless, Susan

-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (, October 14, 2000.

Hi, Susan.
I would enjoy conversing with you, but first I must remind you that you have a duty that I brought to your attention last time --
Either (1) you need to produce evidence to support your serious claim ("I am not happy that the Pope has the nerve to say that only Catholics are going to heaven.") ...
Or (2) you need to apologize for making this false statement about the pope.
Please reflect on this. If you do, you'll realize that you must show that you are an honorable Christian by doing one of these two things.
Thank you.
PS: Please do take Enrique's advice and, if you have courage and genuine confidence in what you believe, visit Chris Butler's site. It is there (and at other good sites, like that you will find that each claim you have just made (that is in favor of your private religion and against Catholicism) cannot stand up to scrutiny. I praise you for holding onto some good Christian truths, rather than slipping into atheism or a non-Christian religion. But, unfortunately, because you strayed from the Church that Jesus founded, you hold some seriously wrong ideas too. In addition, some important truths are missing from your personal creed.

-- J. F. Gecik (, October 14, 2000.

John, Dude , you are killing me.I am not clinging to any Catholic stuff. I learned more about God in the last 5 years than I learned through 16 years of Catholic school.My Christian truths come from the bible. I would be back-sliding if I went back to Catholicism(is that a correct spell?).My Faith is in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it has nothing to do with religion.You are trapped in religion.Sorry,I'm very passionate about this.I want my family to be saved. And you too. You still havn't told me who Jesus is to you. About what I said about your pope.I heard that from one of my clients.She said that it was in the public pulse section of our local paper.So if it is just gossip or hearsay,I would be very glad to apologize.So, I'm going to have to do some research. Oh, yea, heartwjesus means Jesus lives in my heart. Thanks for your input ,this banter is exilarating. You see, I love Jesus. May God draw you closer to Him. Susan

-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (, October 14, 2000.

Dear Susan, John, (Hello again) and the rest of us,

Where is this all leading? Nothing new here. The world of protestantism is alive and well, all 25,000 separate sects and persuasions stemming from the so-called reformation.

All who favor private interpretation of the words of the Holy Bible (Protestants) give credence to the words of Saint Paul: ''The wisdom of man is folly to God.'' Because they adhere to their own power to ''understand'' the Word of God. Just as the Scribes and Pharisees, who denied Jesus' faultless interpretation of the same, believed in their own powers. Then they become as the blind leading the blind.

In our Church are still some Catholics that dispute the reforming power of Vatican II, to the point of rebelling against the Vicar of Christ himself-- They are flirting with disaster to themselves. This is precisely the error committed by Henry VIII and by Martin Luther, to name the most obvious cases.

To these well-meaning traditionalists I would put a simple question. Did you used to enjoy the fast from midnight to Holy Communion the day after? I didn't. I have to thank Vatican II for this change in our tradition, for one. A drink of water is nice, up to an hour prior to communion; forgive my weakness.

Why not all of us lighten up, Dudes? Give the Protestants their wish, and don't cast your pearls before swine. God will be the Judge. You must remember the words of Jesus Christ (read 'em) ''--If they will not hear the Church-- let them be as the heathen and the publican.'' And where is the Church? It is where the chair of Peter is, Peter, the first bishop of ROME. The Pope is the visible sign to the world of WHERE the True Church is, for all the ages. When the last Bible is being misinterpreted by proud men and women, the Word of God will be found there, as it is from the beginning. Before the coming of the printing press.

-- Eugene C. Chavez (, October 15, 2000.

Welcome back, Eugene. People was beginning to ask about your whereabouts (i.e. Your absence from this forum). Your reply, as always is very good. As far as the Councils go, I would ask those who reject Vatican II: What Council in Church history did not make changes in disciplinary matters? As far I as know, none of them. In dogmatic matters, the Councils have been very consistent in teaching us what Jesus taught, sometimes clarifiyng what was somewhat obscure or implied in the Bible and Sacred Tradition.


-- Enrique Ortiz (, October 15, 2000.

Considering that this thread has become too long I'm starting a new one on the same topic, under the heading: message to Susan Shepherd Magistro.


-- Enrique Ortiz (, October 15, 2000.


You write: "Where is this all leading? Nothing new here. The world of protestantism is alive and well, all 25,000 separate sects and persuasions stemming from the so-called reformation."

Do you think it is honest to say this? How can you call every sect and persuasion Protestant, when probably almost all of them aren't even Christian? My dictionary defines Protestant as 'belonging to any branch of the Western Church outside the Roman Catholic Church'. How many Protestant churches can you name? I bet you couldn't name fifty. Bear in mind that Pentecostal and Evangelical churches are not Protestant churches. They are non-denominational churches.

-- carl furnace (, February 13, 2001.

Dear Carl,
In truth, I should be more specific. There isn't enough space in this website to name every grouping of ''believers'' claiming to follow Christ outside the Roman Catholic Church. Even if I had the list before me. I'm being honest though. With some research I could document it. If by my use of the term ''protestant'' I have lost all credibility, I'm sorry. Maybe I'm wrong, but even ONE church group, however sincere in its worship, which pretends to replace or gainsay the Catholic Church --is an affront to the Holy Apostles and Martyrs who raised up that Church. I know Our Lord said, ''Who is not against us is with us,'' to His disciples. But the only True Church founded by Him in the world's history is the Catholic Church. That is a fact very easily proven --Historically. You maintain it would be hard to name ''fifty'' actual Protestant sects. That is tacit admission that scores exist at least.

Did Jesus found a score of rival churches --to the Church of His Holy Apostles; all of them in the care of the Holy Spirit? What if you DO call some non-denominational and some Protestant? They are allpretenders, every one! But having said this, Carl-- I welcome you and your contributions. We can be friends.

-- eugene c. chavez (, February 13, 2001.

Thank you Eugene.

-- carl furnace (, February 13, 2001.


Hello, Carl.
If you read all the threads here from the past two months, eventually you will come across one in which some details about the 25,000+ separate non-Catholic Christian denominations (and self-styled "non-denominational" bodies). The name of the book (from Oxford University Press) which provides the list is given, etc.. Also on that thread (if I recall correctly) there is an explanation of why your dictionary's definition of "Protestant" is not a valid one.
Welcome to the forum.
God bless you.

-- J. F. Gecik (, February 14, 2001.

Dear John,
Yesterday I think I brought up the subject of Oscar Wilde ( an Oxford grad)-- Do you recall the thread? Can't locate it.

It caused me to check up and make certain I was correct about saying he was a convert on his deathbed. I searched and found:

--and read the whole thing. Yes, he did become a Catholic, at the end. The story of his life, as you'd suppose, is lurid and scandalous. But it did me good to realize; YES-- God is merciful, even to those that bring disgrace down on themselves. A while back, I said I would attempt to juxtapose these kinds of sinners vs. Mother Theresa, and the kind. In God's eyes, truly-- His Divine Son died for ALL OF US!

-- eugene c. chavez (, February 14, 2001.

What is the identification of the church? What is she to be? What was she? What is it? The called out group. Who set it up? Jesus Christ; not a bishop, not the Catholic church, not Methodist, not Luther, not Wesley. No, sir. Who set it up? Jesus Christ. What is its message? Repentance, water baptism, baptism of the Holy Ghost, Divine healing, salvation. How do we become a member of it? By being borned into it. Can we get to heaven without it? No, sir. For those that are dead in Christ will God bring with Him, and not--not anyone else but those who are dead in Christ. Jesus is coming for those that are dead in Christ. Ephesians 4 chapter said that the... No, Galatians, I believe it is, the 4th chapter said that "Those that are dead in Christ will God bring with Him. Those that are dead in Christ will God brings with Him."

"If a Roman Catholic, if he is depending on the Catholic church (which is their fundamental doctrine), but if he believes that that Catholic church is going to save him, he's lost; but if he's got faith in Jesus Christ God's Son, and depending on Him for salvation, he's saved. If a Methodist, or a Pentecostal, or a Baptist, if they're depending on their church or organization to save them, they're lost; but if they're depending on Jesus Christ and accepted Him... Because it's your own personal faith in Christ Jesus that saves us, whether you are Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Catholic, Jew, or what more; it's your personal faith in Jesus Christ.

He has individuals in every church, all different kinds of churches. If a man is a Catholic, and he's depending on the Catholic church for salvation, that man's lost. But if he's a Catholic, and depending on Jesus Christ for salvation... By faith are you saved, and that by the grace of God. Whether he's Baptist, Pentecostal, whatever he is, it's our faith, our personal faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Saviour.

Never draw no boundary lines for organizations. We believe all people are--have the right to be a Christian. "Whosoever will, let him come." No matter what color, creed, what he is, if he's a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ and accepted Him as personal Saviour, he's saved by faith. That's the grace of God that called him.

-- William (, February 15, 2001.

"What is its message? Repentance, water baptism, baptism of the Holy Ghost, Divine healing, salvation."

Well, everybody's got that...

"I am the bread of heaven; unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you."

And who's got that...Oh, guess who....


-- Anthony (, February 15, 2001.


I'll respond to your question tonight or in a few days when I have some time. Things are pretty busy right now.

By the way, the verse you quoted "I am the bread of heaven; unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you" should be interpreted using the same approach as when Jesus said, "Truly, truly, unless you are born again . . ."

Everyone knows we cannot enter the womb again, so he must have a spiritual meaning he is communicating . . . same thing with eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Don't you think it a bit inconsistent to say that on the one hand Jesus is speaking symbolically and on the other he is speaking literally when both statements are delivered in a similar manner and for a similar application?

In fact, both are addressing the same thing. Dying to self and becoming alive in Christ is the spiritual act of both being born again and the partaking of Christ's life inside of us which is what he meant when he said eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Again, not a point I expect to win anybody over on, but interjected for your interest.

Take care.

-- David Bowerman (, February 15, 2001.

"He suffered," said the Scriptures. He's the One the prophets spoke of. He's the One the whole Bible's turned around, involved around Him. Surely He'd know what ought to be taught; He'd know what ought to be done. And He said repentance and remission of sins must be preached to all nations for a witness, beginning at Jerusalem. Now, organization begin at Rome; organization church begin at Rome, come on to Germany for Martin Luther, on to England for Wesley, on to the United States for John Smith, California for Pentecost. But the church begin at Jerusalem. Repentance towards God and the baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins, begin at Jerusalem, and should..." "Should," He said. Didn't say they'd all reach it. It should begin; It should go to all the world; It should be preached, but there's very little of them. But that's what He said, His message. That's the message of the church. Show me the church that's teaching it. Tell me where it's at. You don't find them.

John 14:12, He gives the teaching what the church should do. In John the 14th chapter, and the 12th verse, we'll see what that says. John 14:12, so we read it, make it official. John 14 and the 12th verse. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these do he, do, shall; because I go to my Father.

That's the message of the church: "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever,"Heb.13:8, living in the church, King of the church, raised from the dead, same yesterday, today, and forever, performing the same works, doing the same things that Jesus did. That's the message of the church. If the church isn't teaching That, it's teaching some false theology. That's what Jesus commanded them to preach...Anthony, why are you disturbed by my sayings? Why are you saying I paste my sayings? Please reconize Truth when it come's to you.

-- William (, February 15, 2001.

Dear David Bowerman--

In fact, both are addressing the same thing. Dying to self and becoming alive in Christ is the spiritual act of both being born again and the partaking of Christ's life inside of us which is what he meant when he said eating his flesh and drinking his blood.


You have this doubt about the Church's interpretation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Just some thoughts regarding FAITH: I'm approaching from an indirect part of Holy Scripture. If I don't write chapter/verse, pardon that. It would take me much longer, and anyway, these passages are very familiar.

In Gen God says, ''Let us make man in our own image and likeness.'' We know He is not anthropomorphic; He means they are like Me-- They have inner awareness of Truth. They shall THINK like Me (Relatively speaking.) Later we have Christ saying, ''Amen I say to you if you have faith and do not waver --if you say to this mountain, ; 'Arise and hurl yourself into the sea,' it shall be done.'' Our Lord is telling us, by this admonition (faith without wavering) --Don't think like men, think like God! That's why you were made in His image.

He is preparing them (us) for the ultimate act of faith; because ''With God all things are possible.''

In the face of ''This is My Body, which will be given up for you, --Take and drink, this is my Blood,'' nothing but the greatest faith is necessary. We must look upon the Sacrament with the eyes of God Himself, who has declared them what they HAVE TO BE,''. We have it on Christ's own Word, ''You can move a mountain, if your faith is unwavering.'' What He is doing, giving us His flesh to eat, and blood to drink, is NOT figurative. He is doing what is possible to God, and precisely what His words attest. He is moving the mountain right before our eyes, and all we have to do-- to receive His Body and Blood, is believe!

That is the faith Catholics are called to, David. Unwavering faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (, February 15, 2001.

Holy! Holy! Holy! Lord God of Power and Might; heaven and earth are full of Your Glory! Hosanna in the Highest! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the Highest!

-- eugene c. chavez (, February 15, 2001.


I'm suprised you'd say that about whether or not Jesus was referring to *literally* eating His body. Read John 6 again. Some of his followers made the same interprettation you are, and Jesus corrected them. Afterwards, some of them left because they couldn't accept it. If what YOU say is true, how do you explain the loss of these people?


-- Someone (, February 15, 2001.

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. Question: The bread that Jesus break and gave to the disciples,.. Was that a real wheat loaf bread that was blessed and represented his body or was that real physical flesh that he cut from his body? JOHN 13:4
4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. JOHN 13:5
5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe [them] with the towel wherewith he was girded. JOHN 13:8
8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Question: After Supper , Jesus washed peters feet , why dont the catholics do the same, since Jesus did Say -->

JOHN 13:14
14 If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
JOHN 13:15
15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

-- lisa (, February 15, 2001.

I do so enjoy these messages. It is quite a refreshing change from certain others...

I know this is very long, but it is very worth me...

I never mentioned anything about symbolic interpretations. But anyway, from a strictly historical perspective, trans-substantion was the belief of the early Church. I quoted a letter in another thread, if you wish me to do so again, just let me know. The general gist of it, (written before AD100 to a pagan philosopher to explain what Christians believe) contains a description of worship (virtually identical to the modern Mass) and a taking of the consecrated bread and wine to the sick and homebound (a ministry I'm involved in in my own parish...well, the nursing home end of it anyway. so we still do this). None of the protestant churches in the area that send people to the nursing homes bring the bread/wine from their own services. Why don't they do this? Why bother? According to them it's only symbolic anyway...but to the early Christians it wasn't (and I won't be put to death for being found with the Eucharist).

also consider 1Corinthians10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

now I suppose that you could put a symbolic interpretation on that, but this...

1Corinthians29 For anyone who eats and drinks WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

You must believe whole-heartedly that when Jesus said "This IS my body" (and not "this represents my body" or "this is as my body is/will be" or this is like my body") He meant *is* and not "like" or "as" and the apostle and early Christians knew this.

It has been something hard for people to accept, both then and now. Consider this, Lutheranism, earliest of the protestant movements, still believes in sacraments (although only three), one of these being the Eucharist (but I have recently learned that Luther amended this to something called 'con-substantiation'), which should show that the history of the protestant movement has been a kind of "one-upsmanship" of "un-orthodoxy," with each new group taking things a step farther, and a step farther, and a step farther away from the historical Church teachings.

Consider the following: Luther originally didn't want a split with the Church. It was very far from his mind. He only began an anti-Church propaganda campaign once frustrated by the lack of response he was getting from the Church. Remember when reading the subsequent passages, that these 95 theses, supposedly nailed to the door of the Wittenburg cathedral (we don't know if this happened or not, but they were certainly mailed around to officials by Luther) formed the basis of the protestant movement, and the boundaries to which it was supposed to go.

some of his theses 25.The same power that the Pope has over Pugatory, such has also every bishop in his diocese, and every curate in his parish. 26.The Pope acts most rightly in granting remission to souls... by way of intercession.

29.And who knows whether all those souls in Purgatory wish to be redeemed, as it is said to have happened with St. Severinus and St. Paschallis.

he also says things like: 35.He preaches like a heathen who teaches that those who will deliver souls out of Purgatory or buy indulgences do not need repentance and contrition. His beef here is not with Purgatory, which a reading of the 95 theses will tell you he believed in, but in the corruption (unoffical corruption, mind you) that surrounded indulgences. This IS the Church's teaching...repentance and contrition are, and always were, a necessary component of a functioning indulgence.

as shown by: 53.Those who, on account of a sermon concerning indulgences in one church, condemn the word of God to silence in the others, are enemies of Christ and the Pope. and others, the Pope has a valid office

also 61.For it is clear that the Pope's power is sufficient for the remission of penalties and forgiveness... so humans *can* have this power

70.But they ought still more to mark with eyes and ears, that these commissaries do not preach their own fancies instead of what the Pope has commanded. interesting, no?

75.To think that the Popish [<-this was not yet a slur] pardons have power to absolve a man even if - to utter an impossibility - he had violated the Mother of God, is madness. just for the title - Mother of God

77.To say that the St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could show no greater mercies, is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope. 78.We assert on the contrary that both this and every other Pope has greater mercies to show: namely, the Gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc. (I Cor. XII). more pope stuff

89.If the Pope seeks by his pardons the salvation of souls, rather than money, why does he annul letters of indulgence granted long ago, and declare them out of force, though they are still in force? so indulgences do work (indulgences are only for Purgatory, not Hell), he was arguing against certain indulgence-related practices...

This is what Catholics mean if ever you hear the word hypocrisy mentioned in conjunction with the protestant movement. Most of the stuff we wind up arguing about is because groups changed things simply to put distance between themselves and the Church (like the Jehova's Witnesses) or due to faulty personal interpretation (Luther's understanding of the nature of the Sacrament of Confession).


-- Anthony (, February 15, 2001.

to lisa:

answer: It *was* the "real wheat loaf" until such time as Jesus consecrated it. It then *became* His body...


The Mystery of the Eucharist.


-- Anthony (, February 15, 2001.

Dear Lisa:

Actually, I've been to a foot-washing ceremony at a Catholic church before. Have you?


-- Hannah (, February 15, 2001.

Dear David Bowerman,

Excellent post!

-- SSM (non-catholic follower of Jesus Christ) (, February 15, 2001.


We are all much in your debt, Eugene and Anthony, for those outstanding posts. (Anthony, I was unaware of that information quoted from Luther's "Theses." Amazing.)
You gentlemen have provided some fine "course corrections" for David and Lisa.
God bless you.

-- J. F. Gecik (, February 16, 2001.

Thanks, one of them got cut off (I think because of my use of brackets), so here it is with my words in parenthesis:

75.To think that the Popish (this was not yet a slur) pardons have power to absolve a man even if - to utter an impossibility - he had violated the Mother of God, is madness. just for the title - Mother of God


-- anthony (, February 17, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ