There is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church.
-
I woudl much rather place this in the CC forum but tis quite dead.
Is there any Bible verses supporting such a doctrine? -
The only good things you did today.Originally posted by AMEN56789:
-
CC = Chit Chat ForumOriginally posted by Pope Nicholas:I woudl much rather place this in the CC forum but tis quite dead.
Is there any Bible verses supporting such a doctrine?
RC = Roman Catholic Forum
which one are you refering to???
Bible verse ???
I know one that says, without sheding of blood, the can be no salvation
I know one that says, apart from Christ, no one can be saved
I don't remember any verse that says 'no Salvation outside the Catholic Church'
maybe you can show it to us?
cheers
-
I can easily find such doctrines in Pope Clement Epistle to the Corinthians in 90AD and Ignatius writings as well. Since they were Apostolic fathers, the Apostles must have made such a teaching so I was wondering were in Scripture can I find it?Originally posted by vince69:CC = Chit Chat Forum
RC = Roman Catholic Forum
which one are you refering to???
Bible verse ???
I know one that says, without sheding of blood, the can be no salvation
I know one that says, apart from Christ, no one can be saved
I don't remember any verse that says 'no Salvation outside the Catholic Church'
maybe you can show it to us?
cheers
The only source I can find is that outside the Ark in the Deluge, no one was saved. CC = Noah's ARK. -
Don't you think it's often a play on labels and words?
-
Ah ... AD90 ...Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:I can easily find such doctrines in Pope Clement Epistle to the Corinthians in 90AD and Ignatius writings as well. Since they were Apostolic fathers, the Apostles must have made such a teaching so I was wondering were in Scripture can I find it?
The only source I can find is that outside the Ark in the Deluge, no one was saved. CC = Noah's ARK.
historical context, they are not wrong ...
At this moment in history, (btw, back then, they were called elders or overseer, not Pope, the Title Pope appear much later, but this is another issue), during the first century church, everyone who had believed and accepted Christ (ie. received salvation) automatically become a part of the Church. Hence, its once you are saved, you are automatically a part of the Catholic Church. so, working backwards, it also means, you not member means you not yet received salvation lah ...
(some sort of a reverse deduction, which is true only if the former is true, which in the modern context may not be, unless your reference to the Catholic Church is refering to ALL who have had receieved salvation through Christ, be they catholics or protestants) -
Haha. Not true on the first statement. He was considered a BISHOP and not really an overseer. Ignatius wrote much on the role of bishops. I do concede that he did not hold the title of Pope but rather the Bishop of Rome (which is where papal power derives from). Naturally thats another issue.Originally posted by vince69:Ah ... AD90 ...
historical context, they are not wrong ...
At this moment in history, (btw, back then, they were called elders or overseer, not Pope, the Title Pope appear much later, but this is another issue), during the first century church, everyone who had believed and accepted Christ (ie. received salvation) automatically become a part of the Church. Hence, its once you are saved, you are automatically a part of the Catholic Church. so, working backwards, it also means, you not member means you not yet received salvation lah ...
(some sort of a reverse deduction, which is true only if the former is true, which in the modern context may not be, unless your reference to the Catholic Church is refering to ALL who have had receieved salvation through Christ, be they catholics or protestants)
Ignatius and Clement made it clear that Catholics alone recieve salvation and condemned other forms of christianity (heresy) to damnation. They did not consider Marcionites or the Gnostics as being saved. This clearly disproves your arguments on them refering to a Universal Church. Instead they refered to orthodox christianity, namely Catholicism. Naturally the CC does not hold such an extreme view haha or else Trent would have condemned every protestant to hell haha.Ignatius of Antioch -
Which brings me back to my question, is there any verses to support this doctrine?
Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the Passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3-4:1 [A.D. 110]). -
Probably because these are considered not having received the Salvation from Christ, hence not saved, hence not part of the Catholic Church.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:They did not consider Marcionites or the Gnostics as being saved
Catholic Church = Universal Church; reason being the word Catholic means Universal.
but like Ignatius of Antioch said, there are some that preach a different 'gospel', a gospel of man that is meant to mislead the people, and not the Gospel of Christ that leads to salvation. To these, they have no part in the body of Christ (ie. Church).
one of the problem Paul have had during the early church is that there are still people that says, I am with Paul, I am with Peter, I am with John, I am with Apollos ..etc... and All these are all considered part of the Catholic Church, though not all of them are part of the church in Rome. -
I do agree with the Terminology of the term Catholic. However you do fail to understand that the Church is a visible and unviersal church with similiar doctrines.Originally posted by vince69:Probably because these are considered not having received the Salvation from Christ, hence not saved, hence not part of the Catholic Church.
Catholic Church = Universal Church; reason being the word Catholic means Universal.
but like Ignatius of Antioch said, there are some that preach a different 'gospel', a gospel of man that is meant to mislead the people, and not the Gospel of Christ that leads to salvation. To these, they have no part in the body of Christ (ie. Church).
one of the problem Paul have had during the early church is that there are still people that says, I am with Paul, I am with Peter, I am with John, I am with Apollos ..etc... and All these are all considered part of the Catholic Church, though not all of them are part of the church in Rome.
Ignatius of Antioch"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the Passion [of Christ].
1) To be a schismatic, one must resist authority. Ignatius wrote much on the authority of Bishops hence a schismatic is one who go against such authority. Naturally, the existence of authority requires a vivble body ie the Catholic Church. It is impossible for schismatics to exist if there is no visble authority to have schism with in the first place.
2) To be a heretic, one must go against doctrines of the CC. This requires the Church to have one set of doctrines that is considered to be the Truth or else there is no yardstick to judge what is heresy. Without a set of doctrines, ehresy cannot take place as it will be merely one of the many competing viewpoints existing in a loose confederation of ZChurches that contradict each other.
Hence Ignatius clearly speaks on a visible Church with a clear set of doctrines and authority.
The main weakness of your arguments in the direct assumption that people might actually know what is heresy if there is no comparision with an infallible doctrine of Truth.
Hence naturally Ignatius speaks that non-catholics will not be saved in that era due to their heresy and schism. -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
And I agree, however you need to remember, during the 1st century, there is really only one church, one doctrine.
I do agree with the Terminology of the term Catholic. However you do fail to understand that the Church is a visible and unviersal church with similiar doctrines.
(there is no such thing as protestants, charismatic, or what so ever notch)
its just either you are a fellow believer and a member of the Catholic church or you are not for both. -
Nope.Originally posted by vince69:And I agree, however you need to remember, during the 1st century, there is really only one church, one doctrine.
(there is no such thing as protestants, charismatic, or what so ever notch)
its just either you are a fellow believer and a member of the Catholic church or you are not for both.
In the 1st century no church one.
Very chaotic. Factions here and there.
The earliest chuch communities are those in the *authentic* Pauline epistles. Do they look like one church, one doctrine to you?
PS: The Jerusalem Church not counted 'cos they are Jewish. -
your first two argument is based on your understanding on how the current catholic church is teaching it(schismatic), have you ever thought the situation at that time may be different? and your understanding may not be inline with their context?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:1) To be a schismatic, one must resist authority. Ignatius wrote much on the authority of Bishops hence a schismatic is one who go against such authority. Naturally, the existence of authority requires a vivble body ie the Catholic Church. It is impossible for schismatics to exist if there is no visble authority to have schism with in the first place.
2) To be a heretic, one must go against doctrines of the CC. This requires the Church to have one set of doctrines that is considered to be the Truth or else there is no yardstick to judge what is heresy. Without a set of doctrines, ehresy cannot take place as it will be merely one of the many competing viewpoints existing in a loose confederation of ZChurches that contradict each other.
Hence Ignatius clearly speaks on a visible Church with a clear set of doctrines and authority.
The main weakness of your arguments in the direct assumption that people might actually know what is heresy if there is no comparision with an infallible doctrine of Truth.
Hence naturally Ignatius speaks that non-catholics will not be saved in that era due to their heresy and schism.
try to bring things back to the time then, the soical and political environment back then... -
one church -> body of ChristOriginally posted by Icemoon:Nope.
In the 1st century no church one.
Very chaotic. Factions here and there.
The earliest chuch communities are those in the *authentic* Pauline epistles. Do they look like one church, one doctrine to you?
PS: The Jerusalem Church not counted 'cos they are Jewish.
one doctrine -> salvation in Christ.
their disunity is not in these, but rather in 'I am better then you', I richer then you', 'I follow a stronger leader then you' ....etc -
these are loaded words - body of Christ, salvation in Christ etc.Originally posted by vince69:one church -> body of Christ
one doctrine -> salvation in Christ.
their disunity is not in these, but rather in 'I am better then you', I richer then you', 'I follow a stronger leader then you' ....etc
I can argue, even the Marcionites believe in salvation in Christ. What say you? -
Urrrghhhh ....Originally posted by Icemoon:these are loaded words - body of Christ, salvation in Christ etc.
I can argue, even the Marcionites believe in salvation in Christ. What say you?
you caught me .....
actually not just loaded words lah... you are just trying to be nice ...
without expansion into doctrines the likes of the five solas, these words basically are just too generalised.
But then they will do for now..
like the Thread Started said in his opening post, its more suitable for CC Forum (which I think means Chit Chat). -
duh .. you are the one who said:Originally posted by vince69:Urrrghhhh ....
you caught me .....
actually not just loaded words lah... you are just trying to be nice ...
without expansion into doctrines the likes of the five solas, these words basically are just too generalised.your first two argument is based on your understanding on how the current catholic church is teaching it(schismatic), have you ever thought the situation at that time may be different? and your understanding may not be inline with their context? try to bring things back to the time then, the soical and political environment back then...
that time where got five solas?
-
read again lah.. i said doctrines 'the likes of five solas', not 'the five solas' ...Originally posted by Icemoon:that time where got five solas? 
and no point expanding into them here, afterall its CC (Chit Chat) -
Ok ... for CC purpose...
why was the gifts and offering collected from the Church of Corinth and Galatia sent to Jerusalem and not Rome, if Rome is where the seat of Christ resides? I mean should all the tithes,offerings,gifts goes to the storehouse of God?
1 Corinthians 16 : 1-4
The Collection for God's People
1Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. 3Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. 4If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me. 
(*hint: its not about the seat of power or anything) -
so how to make those words more specific?Originally posted by vince69:read again lah.. i said doctrines 'the likes of five solas', not 'the five solas' ... -
Simple.Originally posted by vince69:why was the gifts and offering collected from the Church of Corinth and Galatia sent to Jerusalem and not Rome, if Rome is where the seat of Christ resides? I mean should all the tithes,offerings,gifts goes to the storehouse of God?
The church in Rome might not been started yet. Or they too small don't need funds. -
Such a simplisitc view woudl mean most of the christian heretics would ahve been part of the Church. On the contrary Irenaus and Ignatius continue to poin to one visible structure with authority and ONE set of doctrines. If there was just "salvation thru Christ", there would be many intepretations, so why then is the proto-catholic pt of view alone correct? Its because they alone meet the CC doctrine.Originally posted by vince69:one church -> body of Christ
one doctrine -> salvation in Christ.
their disunity is not in these, but rather in 'I am better then you', I richer then you', 'I follow a stronger leader then you' ....etc -
There are many factions at that time but onli the CC survived till this day. And yes Ignatius and many Apostolic Fathers belonged to it.Originally posted by vince69:And I agree, however you need to remember, during the 1st century, there is really only one church, one doctrine.
(there is no such thing as protestants, charismatic, or what so ever notch)
its just either you are a fellow believer and a member of the Catholic church or you are not for both. -
Do you know Juerasalam is not even considered an Apostolic See....there is only 3 Apostolic See that is Alexandria, Antioch (the oldest) and Rome.Originally posted by vince69:Ok ... for CC purpose...
why was the gifts and offering collected from the Church of Corinth and Galatia sent to Jerusalem and not Rome, if Rome is where the seat of Christ resides? I mean should all the tithes,offerings,gifts goes to the storehouse of God?
(*hint: its not about the seat of power or anything)
Seat of Christ = Peter
Where was Peter at that time?
Ans: Juerasalem.
Where was Peter when he wrote his First Epistle and since?
Ans: Rome -
I am going to ignore the other chats here (don't think he read what we had been conversing)Originally posted by Icemoon:Simple.
The church in Rome might not been started yet. Or they too small don't need funds.
Icey,
here is another clue;
Romans15:26-27
26For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. 27They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews' spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.
Haha ... actually, if I am not remember wrongly, think there is some sort of a famine or crisis there during that time lah ... -
The Jerusalem Church very powerful one you know, all the Apostles (including Paul) are members of this church and also many believers who are witness of Christ when He walks on Earth, and its run by a council seated almost entirely by Apostles of Christ.Originally posted by Icemoon:Nope.
In the 1st century no church one.
Very chaotic. Factions here and there.
The earliest chuch communities are those in the *authentic* Pauline epistles. Do they look like one church, one doctrine to you?
PS: The Jerusalem Church not counted 'cos they are Jewish.