All religions lead to God - Pope Francis

17,595 Views | 236 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by ramblin_ag02
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Banned said:



So you think the following is not making a mockery of Catholics?

"It's easy. Rome is right because Rome says it's right.

If it looks like Rome is contradicting itself (as is in this case), it's because Rome either reinterpreted what was said or we just can't trust the words said.

So trust Rome because Rome says it's right and Rome decides what is right."

These are official documents and in no way vague statements? If you think that's accurate, there is no point in discussing anything further with you.. At least when I make a caricature of sola scriptura I do it by saying that I'm intentionally making a caricature of solo scriptura. You seem to be serious about your above comment. I don't know how you can be that blind.

As for the rest of it, I have answered you above. You never responded to any of it. I've never said the church didn't say it. I've acknowledged it. So you are either lying, or refusing to read. If you can't see how a document addressing specific heresies in a specific time may apply differently to people born 600 hundred years later in much different faith and political conditions, I don't know what to tell you. I've added to context that any individual who actually wanted to engage in a conversation would find noteworthy. You don't have that desire. I find it hard to believe that you are dense enough not to catch on at this point. And since it's you and only you, I think it proves that it's intentional. You only want to impugn the Catholic Church, so I'll let you have at it.

Do I think they make a mockery? No I don't? Was it blunt? Yes.

I've posted 3 things. 2 popes and 1 council.

In each of those we learned:

1. Those outside the church are destined for eternal fire (Council of Florence)
Quote:

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives[/quote

2. There is no salvation outside the Church (Unam Sanctum)
Quote:

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3].

3. Then we have the question of who a heretic is. (Exsurge Domine)
Quote:

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

------------------

We could of course look through more councils and documents, but this is clearly different than what francis is saying. It's a completely 180.

While you guys want to define heretic a certain way, we know with absolute certain that Rome historically viewed Luther, Hus, Calvin, etc as heretics.

Hus, a fellow Christian, was burned alive at the stake.
Luther had a wanted "dead or alive" order on him.

So it's indisputable that Rome killed fellow Christians as heretics and would have killed more if they could.

But now you guys want us to believe that Rome has not held that position. The only way you achieve that is to say you're right on this because a bishop says this is right. You've removed any ability to objectively review the words at the councils. You've removed ability to even trust the words because you'll say they don't mean what they mean. What are we left with? Well as has been said many times, laymen can't make these calls, only the bishop. Or said simply, Rome is right because Rome has to be right.

But if you think that's wrong, I'm all ears on how we can objectively assess these councils and pope's words and actions without relying on a bishop to tell us what is right or wrong?
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

In all charity, Catholic teaching is convoluted in a way that other sacramental denominations (or faiths if you take them for their word) aren't. The orthodox don't have to navigate any of these issues, nor do anglicans. Rome has become an insulated institution that is more reminiscent of government bureaucracy than the church Christ instituted. When people sort through it and read that they need to get the windows update for the current regime's take on three documents throughout time and how they work together, is it really their fault, rather than that of the church that creates such confusion?
Its really not. And specifically its not at all when it comes to doctrine of faith and salvation. These other denominations don't have them because they're at best, a couple of hundred years old. If you want convoluted, you just have to look at the hundreds if not thousands of protestant denominations. So the convolution is in the myriad of teachings. And its not true Orthodox or Anglican are simple.

The RCC is the continuation of the Church Christ founded, so the oldest and the one with the longest history of having to teach and clarify. Popes et al have misspoken in the past or just plain said things that were confusing but those weren't statement of official church doctrine. Most were just personal statements.

I also get that everyone here is jockeying for why their denomination is the most accurate and the others have their faults. I do it too. Because to consider that our choice of church is not the one Christ instituted is to overwhelming for most to even explore the option. I did it as a protestant for half of my life....speaking untruths about the RCC that in reality I knew nothing about and never took time to examine it. Its easy to pick at the RCC because its been around the longest, is the largest and most organized.

Remember too, that the bible is just as confusing and convoluted in some places to the point where most cannot rely on their own interpretation to really understand it...and neither could some of the followers of the apostles (see the Ethiopian).

BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
lobopride said:

BluHorseShu said:

Pro Sandy said:

"All religions are paths to reach God."

"They are like different languages in order to arrive at God, but God is God for everyone. Since God is God for all, then we are all children of God."

"If you start to fight'My religion is more important than your's; mine is true and your's isn't'then where will that lead us?"

"There is only one God, and each of us has a language to reach God. Some are Sikh, some Muslim, Hindu, Christian. And they are all paths to God."

Pope Francis said these comments in Singapore this week.

Is he trying to say that if you are in a religion, at least you are seeking God? Or is he straight up contradiction "I Am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me?"

I firmly believe that Christianity is true and other religions are not. Whether protestant or Catholic, it is better because it is the gospel of the living Christ. How can the Pope say it is no better than Islam or Hindu?
He's speaking generally of a sole deity. He's not saying they're on par with Christianity in any way shape or form. The Pope has used language before that has confused some and had to revise it....but no one ever posts the revisions he makes to clarify.
The Pope has always stated the Church believes there is only one path to salvation, faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of the one true God.

And technically, we ARE all children of God, made in his image. Its just others have chosen to deny Christ and chose a different path to god (little g intended).

Nothingburger here.


We are either enemies of God or His children. Not everyone is a child of God.

We are all made in His image. Your parsing words but I think you know what I meant. God loves everyone , which doesn't mean everyone will accept his grace. None the less, he loves everyone. To deny this is to deny the most important commandment.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think the good Archbishop nails it:

Archbishop Chaput:
According to news reports, Pope Francis suggested that, "[Religions] are like different languages in order to arrive at God, but God is God for all. Since God is God for all, then we are all children of God." He went on to say, "If you start to fight, 'my religion is more important than yours, mine is true and yours isn't,' where will that lead us? There's only one God, and each of us has a language to arrive at God. Some are Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, and they are different paths [to God]." The Holy Father's positive intent here was obvious.

Francis then added a call to enter into interreligious dialogue. He spoke about dialogue as if it were an end in itself. "Interreligious dialogue," he said, "is something that creates a path." The question then is: a path to where?

That all religions have equal weight is an extraordinarily flawed idea for the Successor of Peter to appear to support. It is true that all of the great religions express a human yearningoften with beauty and wisdomfor something more than this life. Humans have a need to worship. That desire seems to be hardwired into our DNA. But not all religions are equal in their content or consequences. Substantial differences exist among the religions the pope named. They have very different notions of who God is and what that implies for the nature of the human person and society. As St. Paul preached two thousand years ago, the search for God can take many imperfect forms, but they are each an imperfect search for the one, true, triune God of Sacred Scripture. Paul condemns false religions and preaches Jesus Christ as the reality and fulfillment of the unknown God whom the Greeks worship (Acts 17:2231).

Simply put: Not all religions seek the same God, and some religions are both wrong and potentially dangerous, materially and spiritually.

Catholics believe that Jesus Christ, once and forever, revealed to all humanity who God is. He redeemed us by his death and resurrection, and he gave us the commission to bring all humanity to him. As our faith teaches very clearly, it is only Jesus Christ who saves. Christ is not merely one among other great teachers or prophets. To borrow a thought from C. S. Lewis, if Jesus were just one among many, he'd also be a liar, because he emphatically claimed that, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). A loving God may accept the worship of any sincere and charitable heartbut salvation comes only through his only son, Jesus Christ.

Which is why Jesus did not say, "Stay on your path, and let's talk about it."

We are called Christians because we believe Jesus Christ is God, the second person of the Trinity. From the beginning of our faith, followers of Christ were unique among world religions because they accepted as true Christ's extraordinary claim that he is Godin part because of his miracles, in part because of his preaching, but ultimately because of his death and bodily resurrection. Christians have also always believed that this reality makes Christianity categorically distinct from all other religions, and in turn requires a total commitment of our lives. (For the Church's Christology, see: the New Testament, the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Ephesus, the Council of Chalcedon, the Council of Trent, the Second Vatican Council, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Vatican's document Dominus Jesus, which all, among many others, teach clearly the divinity of Christ and his unique role in salvation history.)

To suggest, even loosely, that Catholics walk a more or less similar path to God as other religions drains martyrdom of its meaning. Why give up your life for Christ when other paths may get us to the same God? Such a sacrifice would be senseless. But the witness of the martyrs is as important today as ever. We live in an age when the dominant religion is increasingly the worship of the self. We need the martyrsand each of us as a confessor of Jesus Christto remind an unbelieving world that the path to a genuinely rich life is to give oneself fully to another, to the other.

The bishop of Rome is the spiritual and institutional head of the Catholic Church worldwide. This means, among other things, that he has the duty to teach the faith clearly and preach it evangelically. Loose comments can only confuse. Yet, too often, confusion infects and undermines the good will of this pontificate.

Christians hold that Jesus alone is the path to God. To suggest, imply, or allow others to infer otherwise is a failure to love because genuine love always wills the good of the other, and the good of all people is to know and love Jesus Christ, and through him the Father who created us.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Do you as a Roman Catholic accept the dogmatic teachings of Vatican II? Or do you reject the Magisterium? Oh, do you reject the Catechism of the. Catholic Church? Just curious because what you have written is wrong.
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

Do you as a Roman Catholic accept the dogmatic teachings of Vatican II? Or do you reject the Magisterium? Oh, do you reject the Catechism of the. Catholic Church? Just curious because what you have written is wrong.


Dear "Tell me you didn't read what I posted without telling me you didn't actually read what I posted"

I didn't write anything other than "I think the Archbishop nails it."

Nice try though.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

Do you as a Roman Catholic accept the dogmatic teachings of Vatican II? Or do you reject the Magisterium? Oh, do you reject the Catechism of the. Catholic Church? Just curious because what you have written is wrong.

Bro... "+Chaput nails it." And +Chaput mentions VII. What a question.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

PabloSerna said:

Do you as a Roman Catholic accept the dogmatic teachings of Vatican II? Or do you reject the Magisterium? Oh, do you reject the Catechism of the. Catholic Church? Just curious because what you have written is wrong.


Dear "Tell me you didn't read what I posted without telling me you didn't actually read what I posted"

I didn't write anything other than "I think the Archbishop nails it."

Nice try though.
I read everything you wrote and you have erred.

It is the same error others are making so it must be a perception of their mind. In some way, those that are casting the stones towards Pope Francis seem to be the very same people.

Read the entirety of his words, translated and posted on the Vatican's website and then read the various documents and sections in our own Catechism regarding salvation outside the Church.

What you accuse the Pope of doing is not true.

ETA: You wrote, "Christians hold that Jesus alone is the path to God."

This is the error, because the CCC (847) is clear that some have not heard the gospel. We say instead that the RCC is the fullness of truth. There is a difference. It does not mean that the deaths of the martyrs was in vein as someone suggested. Rather, it means that some other religions contain a ray of truth so that "those too may achieve eternal salvation" outside the church.







“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

"Christians hold that Jesus alone is the path to God."

This is the error



FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

PabloSerna said:

Do you as a Roman Catholic accept the dogmatic teachings of Vatican II? Or do you reject the Magisterium? Oh, do you reject the Catechism of the. Catholic Church? Just curious because what you have written is wrong.


Dear "Tell me you didn't read what I posted without telling me you didn't actually read what I posted"

I didn't write anything other than "I think the Archbishop nails it."

Nice try though.
I read everything you wrote and you have erred.

It is the same error others are making so it must be a perception of their mind. In some way, those that are casting the stones towards Pope Francis seem to be the very same people.

Read the entirety of his words, translated and posted on the Vatican's website and then read the various documents and sections in our own Catechism regarding salvation outside the Church.

What you accuse the Pope of doing is not true.

ETA: You wrote, "Christians hold that Jesus alone is the path to God."

This is the error, because the CCC (847) is clear that some have not heard the gospel. We say instead that the RCC is the fullness of truth. There is a difference. It does not mean that the deaths of the martyrs was in vein as someone suggested. Rather, it means that some other religions contain a ray of truth so that "those too may achieve eternal salvation" outside the church.








So, what you're really saying is that the Archbiship is wrong, since all I said is that the Archbishop is right? Literally every other word is directly from and a quote of the Archbishop. All of it was written and published by the Archbishop, not me. Do I agree with him? You bet. Take up your argument with him, not me.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Quote:

"Christians hold that Jesus alone is the path to God."

This is the error




lololol
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

PabloSerna said:

Do you as a Roman Catholic accept the dogmatic teachings of Vatican II? Or do you reject the Magisterium? Oh, do you reject the Catechism of the. Catholic Church? Just curious because what you have written is wrong.


Dear "Tell me you didn't read what I posted without telling me you didn't actually read what I posted"

I didn't write anything other than "I think the Archbishop nails it."

Nice try though.
I read everything you wrote and you have erred.

It is the same error others are making so it must be a perception of their mind. In some way, those that are casting the stones towards Pope Francis seem to be the very same people.

Read the entirety of his words, translated and posted on the Vatican's website and then read the various documents and sections in our own Catechism regarding salvation outside the Church.

What you accuse the Pope of doing is not true.

ETA: You wrote, "Christians hold that Jesus alone is the path to God."

This is the error, because the CCC (847) is clear that some have not heard the gospel. We say instead that the RCC is the fullness of truth. There is a difference. It does not mean that the deaths of the martyrs was in vein as someone suggested. Rather, it means that some other religions contain a ray of truth so that "those too may achieve eternal salvation" outside the church.










Pablo, Jesus alone is the path to God. Whether they know of him or not, all people come to heaven through Christ. "No one comes to the father except through me"

You're mangling the doctrine of invincible ignorance to gloss over the necessity of Christ in the salvation of mankind.

PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That is actually the crux of the problem!


On the surface we (RCC) have this understanding that at first appears to be complete- "Jesus alone" because of course Christ has already told us that he is the way- that is how we understood it at first. Now cast deeper. What about the indigenous people? What about people of different religions that worship the God of Abraham, but reject Jesus as the messiah? We could go on. Thankfully, if you are Roman Catholic, the Magisterium has responded. The response squares with scripture and acknowledges the bigger picture.


“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

That is actually the crux of the problem!


On the surface we (RCC) have this understanding that at first appears to be complete- "Jesus alone" because of course Christ has already told us that he is the way. Now cast deeper. What about the indigenous people? What about people of different religions that worship the God of Abraham, but reject Jesus as the messiah? We could go on. Thankfully, if you are Roman Catholic, the Magisterium has responded. The response squares with scripture and acknowledges the bigger picture.



I was looking for your correction of falsely accusing me of something in a public forum, but I guess if I just cast deeper and really look between the lines of your post here I will see it?
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Can man reach eternal salvation without hearing the Gospel of Christ?

By citing invincible ignorance, you know that man can- so I am not mangling anything.

“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Simple question- can man reach eternal salvation outside the church?
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
jrico2727
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Invincible Ignorance the Silver Bullet of Liberal Catholic Theology.

Kind of of hard to be a shining city on a hill when we don't want to let the light hit our neighbors.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
May be better to just quote the section from the Catechism than for me to keep "mangling" the words:

+++

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846

How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

335. Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21:PL 3,1169; De unit.:PL 4,509-536.
336. LG 14; cf. Mk16:16; Jn 3:5.

847

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

337. LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.

+++

I note that, "Re-formulated positively" is the key term. It expands the definition from what we (RCC) had understood through the Church Fathers in light of what we now know. It doesn't deny the saving work of Jesus but rather sheds greater light on the salvific plan of God for all mankind.

“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

Can man reach eternal salvation without hearing the Gospel of Christ?

By citing invincible ignorance, you know that man can- so I am not mangling anything.




Yes you are. The church does not teach there is any other way that Jesus. It teaches that God may save people outside of the church in a way that we don't know, but doesn't take Jesus out of the equation. Anyone outside of the Church that is saved will still be saved through Jesus, although they may not have known Him by name prior to death. What you wrote was flat out false.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Didn't know St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of Church, was considered "liberal theology"?
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I quoted.
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

I quoted.


You quoted that they did not hear the gospel of Christ. You will not find a quote that it is not Christ doing the saving. We acknowledge the irregular way they may make it to Heaven, but they will still get there through Jesus. You've stretched the quote into falsehood
jrico2727
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

Didn't know St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of Church, was considered "liberal theology"?
Pretty sure he would recognize the cognitive dissidence needed to allow the exception be the rule.
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

Can man reach eternal salvation without hearing the Gospel of Christ?

By citing invincible ignorance, you know that man can- so I am not mangling anything.




There is a difference between the Gospel of Christ and Christ. All are saved by Christ whether they know of him or not.

Is Christ necessary for salvation?
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

PabloSerna said:

I quoted.


You quoted that they did not hear the gospel of Christ. You will not find a quote that it is not Christ doing the saving. We acknowledge the irregular way they may make it to Heaven, but they will still get there through Jesus. You've stretched the quote into falsehood
Here is the quote that seems pretty clear to me:

"This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience those too may achieve eternal salvation."

There is no stretching. There are some people, as was the audience that the Pope was visiting with that day who are not Christians. He was speaking from this part of the catechism- that is my understanding of the situation.

“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quo Vadis? said:

PabloSerna said:

Can man reach eternal salvation without hearing the Gospel of Christ?

By citing invincible ignorance, you know that man can- so I am not mangling anything.




There is a difference between the Gospel of Christ and Christ. All are saved by Christ whether they know of him or not.

Is Christ necessary for salvation?


Knowing what I know- yes.

“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
jrico2727
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

The Banned said:

PabloSerna said:

I quoted.


You quoted that they did not hear the gospel of Christ. You will not find a quote that it is not Christ doing the saving. We acknowledge the irregular way they may make it to Heaven, but they will still get there through Jesus. You've stretched the quote into falsehood
Here is the quote that seems pretty clear to me:

"This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience those too may achieve eternal salvation."

There is no stretching. There are some people, as was the audience that the Pope was visiting with that day who are not Christians. He was speaking from this part of the catechism- that is my understanding of the situation.


Congratulations, you just proved that sitting at the foot of the Pope one can walk away invincibly ignorant.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

The Banned said:

PabloSerna said:

I quoted.


You quoted that they did not hear the gospel of Christ. You will not find a quote that it is not Christ doing the saving. We acknowledge the irregular way they may make it to Heaven, but they will still get there through Jesus. You've stretched the quote into falsehood
Here is the quote that seems pretty clear to me:

"This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience those too may achieve eternal salvation."

There is no stretching. There are some people, as was the audience that the Pope was visiting with that day who are not Christians. He was speaking from this part of the catechism- that is my understanding of the situation.



Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spes teaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:

All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22)

Christ died for all men. United to the paschal mystery. If someone outside of the church is saved, it's still Jesus doing the saving. It shouldn't be difficult for you to amend your prior statement. Can people outside the church go to heaven? Yes. Can they get there without Jesus' death and resurrection? No. To say otherwise is to go against church teaching.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is there not a line with you for the Vicar of Christ?
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If you are asking me personally- I have already stated the positive to understanding that Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God is necessary for my salvation. Grateful that I have this knowledge - a grace given to me by God.


“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
jrico2727
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

Is there not a line with you for the Vicar of Christ?
Edited: to notate my offense was to agree with Pablo's logic.


He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jrico2727 said:

PabloSerna said:

Is there not a line with you for the Vicar of Christ?
He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
In your opinion, did Pope Francis deny Christ with his words?

ETA: "in your opinion:
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You wrote, "Can they get there without Jesus' death and resurrection? No. To say otherwise is to go against church teaching."

Where did I say otherwise?


ETA: cleaned up my question for clarity
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
jrico2727
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

jrico2727 said:

PabloSerna said:

Is there not a line with you for the Vicar of Christ?
He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
In your opinion, did Pope Francis deny Christ with his words?

ETA: "in your opinion:
In my opinion, worthless as it is, he at least failed to declare the Primacy of Christ and the fullness of the the Catholic faith, considering his role and he walks in the footsteps of martyrs, even if he refuses the red shoes, it was poor showing and a failure not only to Catholics but to all Christians who have to defend "even the Pope says you don't have to be Christian. "




BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quo Vadis? said:

PabloSerna said:

Can man reach eternal salvation without hearing the Gospel of Christ?

By citing invincible ignorance, you know that man can- so I am not mangling anything.




There is a difference between the Gospel of Christ and Christ. All are saved by Christ whether they know of him or not.

Is Christ necessary for salvation?

Mary's grace even preceded Christ being born a man, but he was with the father so time is not a linear issue. The same with those in the old testament. So absolutely, Christ was necessary for man's salvation.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.