Catholic or non-catholic that IS thee Question

All Christians hold to Only One True God:thumbsup:

We Catholics hovever go beyond this truth by adding:

“One God logically can have only One set of Faith beliefs”

"And choose to to have, guide, guard and protect only One “chosen people” [OT] “church” [NT]. Which we THINK is biblical.

PLEASE share what we fail to see, grasp or understand:)

Thanks and God Bles you,
Patrick

CCC 781 At all times and in every race, anyone who fears God and does what is right has been acceptable to him.

I assume that the RCC belief is that anyone acceptable to God is guided, guarded, and protected.

The LDS view is that the Holy Spirit has worked among all peoples and cultures in all ages according to their abilities benefit of such divine help. (Couldn’t find the exact quote, but this is close enough.)

And choose to to have, guide, guard and protect only One “chosen people” [OT] “church” [NT]

Not sure where this comes from. I always believed we are called to do so much more.

=gazelam;11350537]CCC 781 At all times and in every race, anyone who fears God and does what is right has been acceptable to him.

I assume that the RCC belief is that anyone acceptable to God is guided, guarded, and protected.

The LDS view is that the Holy Spirit has worked among all peoples and cultures in all ages according to their abilities benefit of such divine help. (Couldn’t find the exact quote, but this is close enough.)

THANK YOU!

Much like the bible, the catholic Catechism too has a [the same] Infallible Rule for RIGHT UNDERSTANDING:

It is this: [caps for emphasis, I’m not shouting here]
NEVER EVER
can, may or DOES
One Teaching
Make Void
Invalidate
or OVERRIDE another:thumbsup:

CCC #781 “At all times and in every race, anyone who fears God and does what is right has been acceptable to him. He has, however, willed to make men holy and save them, not as individuals without any bond or link between them, but rather to make them into a people who might acknowledge him and serve him in holiness. He therefore chose the Israelite race [OT choice] to be his own people and established a covenant with it. He gradually instructed this people. . . . All these things, however, happened as a preparation for and figure of that new and perfect covenant which was to be ratified in Christ . . . the New Covenant in his blood; he called together a race made up of Jews and Gentiles which would be one, not according to the flesh, but in the Spirit.” IN ONE FAITH & One Catholic Church in the NT Covenant]

CCC #846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 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.

CCC #847 847 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.

Continued Blessings My friend:thumbsup:

Catholic or non-catholic that IS thee Question

PJM, I’d like ask you: How do you think statements like ^^ this make us look in the eyes of non-Catholics, or more specifically in the eyes of non-Catholic Christians?

What makes you feel this is not the Catholic view also?

=Peter J;11356473]PJM, I’d like ask you: How do you think statements like ^^ this make us look in the eyes of non-Catholics, or more specifically in the eyes of non-Catholic Christians?

Brother,

Are you suggesting that I not share God’s truth?

I TRUST the Holy Spirit to give and grant right understaning.

God Bless you.
Patrick

You seem to have read something in my post that’s completely different from what I put there. :shrug:

=Peter J;11356914]You seem to have read something in my post that’s completely different from what I put there. :shrug:

PJM, I’d like ask you: How do you think statements like ^^ this make us look in the eyes of non-Catholics, or more specifically in the eyes of non-Catholic Christians?


  • Peter Jericho

This was my reference:o

Well, if you don’t want to answer that question, then let me at least ask you this: Suppose that, in a conversation with an Eastern Orthodox person, I said “We Catholics may not agree with you on everything; but we *are *Christians and we agree with you on quite a lot of doctrine”, and then he/she looked at me and responded “Orthodox or non-Orthodox is **the **question.” What impression would that give you of his/her attitude?

=Peter J;11357045]Well, if you don’t want to answer that question, then let me at least ask you this: Suppose that, in a conversation with an Eastern Orthodox person, I said “We Catholics may not agree with you on everything; but we *are *Christians and we agree with you on quite a lot of doctrine”, and then he/she looked at me and responded “Orthodox or non-Orthodox is **the **question.” What impression would that give you of his/her attitude?

So MY Dear friend,

Did Christ avoid the truth because it’s made some uncomfortable?

I entend no HARM. But truth has to be SINGULAR… yes:shrug:

One God
can [and does] have Only One set of Faih beliefs

And Founded, guides, guards only His One Church:thumbsup:

God Bless YOU!
Patrick

  1. The human mind cannot grasp the divine simplicity except through multiple names (a principle found in Aquinas, although of course he doesn’t apply it to multiple churches or religions)

  2. Given that the Church as a visible, human institution has various flaws while still being holy, it is not self-evident that it can’t also have internal divisions while still being one.

Those are the two most obvious objections, I think.

And many Catholics see their force. The simplistic argument you present is not, in fact, upheld by all your fellow Catholics.

Edwin

I suspect you are talking about the “Church of Nice”. The Church of nice is a contemporary phenomena.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

I assume you’re referring to my “LDS view” sentence. Not being Catholic I don’t take many firm stands on Catholic belief. If the views are similar, I say great!!

No. I"m not. Notice that the two arguments I gave have nothing to do with niceness.

Niceness is not, in fact, a bad thing. But it’s certainly an insufficient basis for a Church:D

You’re just being dismissive in a attempt to avoid answering the points I made.

Edwin

Your (2) points are irrelevant to my point.

You said “The simplistic argument you present is not, in fact, upheld by all your fellow Catholics”.

The fact that his fellow Catholic do not uphold his view is meaningless. The “Church of Nice” are those in the Church who sacrifice truth as not to offend…a sad thing.

No, they’re not, because they’re among the principal reasons that many people, including Catholics, wouldn’t put things the way you do. You are arguing that it’s all about niceness, as if people who disagree with you are sacrificing truth for sentimentality.

Quite the reverse. The problem with the black-and-white picture you paint is that it doesn’t correspond to reality.

Sure, charity (not just niceness) has something to do with it too. But it’s first and foremost an issue of truth–of recognizing the limitations of our own perspective and recognizing truth and goodness when we see it in “outsiders” rather than explaining the evidence away in order to fit our neat little picture.

Note: I believe that the Catholic Church subsists (in the strong sense of that word as interpreted, say, by Ratzinger/Benedict XVI) in the Roman Communion, and that objectively speaking all people are obligated by the Truth to place their faith in Jesus, and all believers in Jesus are obligated to enter communion with Rome (something I am currently seeking to do).

So as so often in my clashes with Catholics on this forum, our disagreement is less about substance and more about your approach. But my objection to your approach isn’t that it’s “not nice,” but that it’s inaccurate and slurs over important truths.

Edwin

I bet you don’t get to say great much!:wink:

Haha…you seems to assume a lot based on a comment. That’s OK.

Christ said to say yes when you mean yes and no when you mean no, anything else is from the evil one. So…pardon me if I seem to say “yes” or “no” or as you put it too black and white.

One is one. Accepting divisions as compatible with One seems illogical to me.

concretecamper, here’s the same question I tried to ask PJM: Suppose that, in a conversation with an Eastern Orthodox person, I said “We Catholics may not agree with you on everything; but we *are *Christians and we agree with you on quite a lot of doctrine”, and then he/she looked at me and responded “Orthodox or non-Orthodox is **the **question.” What impression would that give you of his/her attitude?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.