The System of Salvation

Nic

Well-known member
OK, how would you rephase RayneBeau's question so to make things workable toward having a meaningful discussion? You cited Aquinas and his "systemization" of theology. Recall that he authored over 70 works from 1245 to 1274, including his most famous work, Summa Theologica, which alone is about 1.8 million words long. I seriously doubt that RayneBeau's own personal summation of the Catholic "system" is a fair representation of this work. We can't talk about the Catholic "system" if we can't even agree what it is.
I'd just figure you could pick or choose what you wanted to nuance or explain in the listed items she gave us. That would amount to [imo] pretty much the same discussion with you having some your pick of what it how to elaborate. I wouldn't, as I demonstrated, not get in a fuss or distracted by a single descriptor.
As far as T. Aquinas Summa goes, beg borrow, steal or ignore that entirely. I don't believe the OP was attempting such a comparison, it's fair game (aisi), but it wasn't my point for suggesting it. But you have lots of freedom here if you can get past whatever issue you have with a sole categorizing use adjective. I think your objection is off target to the request of the OP. Just maybe it's an intended or unintended polemical device? Big deal, those are designed to strike a nerve for attention sake. It's kind of like worrying, once worrying serves its purpose of drawing your attention, it's life is over or should be. Time to move past it and address the issues. 🙂
I don't mind a role of mediation from time to time. 🙂
Nic
 

Nic

Well-known member
OK, how would you rephase RayneBeau's question so to make things workable toward having a meaningful discussion? You cited Aquinas and his "systemization" of theology. Recall that he authored over 70 works from 1245 to 1274, including his most famous work, Summa Theologica, which alone is about 1.8 million words long. I seriously doubt that RayneBeau's own personal summation of the Catholic "system" is a fair representation of this work. We can't talk about the Catholic "system" if we can't even agree what it is.
Why don't you choose to define it as it was left somewhat vague and go for it. I bet RayneBeau and others will jump in.
The only question asked in the body of the OP was, "Have I left anything out?" (aisi) You could answer that pretty easy with Y, N or something else with as much or a little as you decide to reveal.
The ball is in your court, your play... 🙂
 
Last edited:

Maxtar

Active member
I see. So in other words you made a claim you had no idea was true but you plopped it out there anyway as though it were? Anything for mother church huh?
I figured it was true, but I was wrong and I quickly owned up to my mistake. What more do you want?
 
Last edited:

mica

Well-known member
Nondenom40 said:
I see. So in other words you made a claim you had no idea was true but you plopped it out there anyway as though it were? Anything for mother church huh?
I figured it was true, but I was wrong and I quickly owned up to my mistake. What more do you want?
why did you? because it was found somewhere in a catholic writing? why didn't you look up the year of it? you should probably know by now that nondenom (or someone else) would check the date. catholics sure get a lot of things wrong even about what their own 'church' teaches. you aren't the 1st catholic here to be corrected on the name of a council, date, what happened at it etc, or even about what the ccc actually does say.

thx for owning up to it, most catholics on here don't. Most often they just disappear for days (weeks, months) then they come back and post the same false info again.

catholics don't check what the RCC teaches with what scripture actually teaches either.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
So a catholic can skip the list in the OP and still be saved correct ?
That isn't the question.

Asking a question like that is like asking "Can someone who doesn't want to spend time with their friend still be their friend?"

In other words----the question isn't "What is the bare minimum I can get away with and still be considered saved" as seems to be the immplicit premise in your question. The question is "If someone truly loves Jesus as they claim, why would they want to skip out on anything that brings then closer to Jesus?"
 

civic

Well-known member
That isn't the question.

Asking a question like that is like asking "Can someone who doesn't want to spend time with their friend still be their friend?"

In other words----the question isn't "What is the bare minimum I can get away with and still be considered saved" as seems to be the immplicit premise in your question. The question is "If someone truly loves Jesus as they claim, why would they want to skip out on anything that brings then closer to Jesus?"
Oh so you are admitting ones salvation depends upon obedience to the sacraments. Thanks for your honest answer
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Oh so you are admitting ones salvation depends upon obedience to the sacraments. Thanks for your honest answer
Alright, let me put this another way:

The question you asked is like me asking "Can someone be saved without having read or understood the Bible?" I would think the answer to that question is "Of course." Well, the question you asked me is like me asking you "Can you be saved without having read or understood the Bible?" Yes, you can, but why would you want to?

All things being equal, a saved person should want to read the Bible. Well, a saved person should want to receive the Sacraments. If a person can read the Bible but does not read the Bible, they can be saved--but why wouldn't they want to read the Bible? One can be saved without reception of the Sacraments--but if one could received them, why wouldn't they want to receive them?

I said it before and I will say it again: you Protestants have a knack for reducing Christianity to the bare minimum. This isn't about the bare minimum or what is absolutely essential. That isn't how relationships work.
 

mica

Well-known member
That isn't the question.

Asking a question like that is like asking "Can someone who doesn't want to spend time with their friend still be their friend?"
you could say that (and you did). catholics prefer to spend time learning about and following the RCC than they do God. How'd that work out for the Jews with their idols?

why do catholics think it'll be any different for them?

In other words----the question isn't "What is the bare minimum I can get away with and still be considered saved" as seems to be the immplicit premise in your question.
you should post questions to yourself...

or your question could be 'how many affairs can I get away with before my wife finds out and divorces me?'

The question is "If someone truly loves Jesus as they claim, why would they want to skip out on anything that brings then closer to Jesus?"
that's a very good question. why do catholics claim He is their Savior but they don't want to read, believe in and follow His teachings?

If He isn't Lord of your life then He also isn't your Savior.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Did you not see what I just did? I admitted my mistake and my first words to our friend was "you got me". Boy, you sure are something else.
That was to one mistake and not the post I responded to. You got me is not I am sorry I was mistaken. You then went on and made another mistake and your response was go talk to yourself. You made a mistake about the sacraments followed up by the date error. Boy you sure are something. The love is oozing.

We can all make a mistake but it is easily fixed with manners.
 

Maxtar

Active member
You got me is not I am sorry I was mistaken.
It was merely the admission of the mistake, the taking ownership of what happened. There was really no need of an apology in this instance.
You then went on and made another mistake and your response was go talk to yourself.
I responded in kind to the condescending manner of the person who responded to me. Perhaps I should have taken the higher road, but I will not be talked down to.
 

mica

Well-known member
Alright, let me put this another way:

The question you asked is like me asking "Can someone be saved without having read or understood the Bible?" I would think the answer to that question is "Of course." Well, the question you asked me is like me asking you "Can you be saved without having read or understood the Bible?" Yes, you can, but why would you want to?
...
How are catholics saved?

How does a catholic know if they are saved?
 

mica

Well-known member
Nondenom40 said:
The 4th Lateran council was 1215. When you start to get your facts straight come talk to me.
It was merely the admission of the mistake, the taking ownership of what happened. There was really no need of an apology in this instance.

I responded in kind to the condescending manner of the person who responded to me. Perhaps I should have taken the higher road, but I will not be talked down to.
what do you find to be a condescending manner in the above post?

you posted something that was incorrect and were called on it. lots of catholics are, why should you be any different than other catholics on here who post incorrect info?
 

Nondenom40

Super Member
I said it before and I will say it again: you Protestants have a knack for reducing Christianity to the bare minimum. This isn't about the bare minimum or what is absolutely essential. That isn't how relationships work.
We don't reduce things to the bare minimum. We just don't make the grand claims your church does. Your own ccc 1129 says the sacraments are necessary for salvation..so it's a legitimate question.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
you could say that (and you did). catholics prefer to spend time learning about and following the RCC than they do God.
Statement assumes that following the RCC is not following God.

that's a very good question. why do catholics claim He is their Savior but they don't want to read, believe in and follow His teachings?
Wrong.
 

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
you could say that (and you did). catholics prefer to spend time learning about and following the RCC than they do God.
Statement assumes that following the RCC is not following God.
no assumption made, just the truth. I'll leave making assumptions up to the catholics.

mica said:
that's a very good question. why do catholics claim He is their Savior but they don't want to read, believe in and follow His teachings?
what's 'wrong'?

why don't you answer the question in my post?
 

Maxtar

Active member
Statement assumes that following the RCC is not following God.
That's all you will ever get from that poster. Someone who claims to know what is in the hearts of people and what God means as He speaks through the scriptures. If you don't have the same relationship with God as the poster has, then you don't know and can never know God. It's the same broken record over and over again. There's a word called hubris that fits perfectly.
 

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
that's a very good question. why do catholics claim He is their Savior but they don't want to read, believe in and follow His teachings?
mica said:

why don't you answer the question in my post?

LifeIn said: - Because they are statements more than questions.
it's obviously a question.

but go ahead and play more catholic games. It supports exactly what believers here continually post about catholicism.

I've had an unending desire to know, read, understand, believe and follow HIS word since I was born again.

catholics show no desire to know, read, understand, believe or follow HIS word.
 

mica

Well-known member
LifeIn said:
Statement assumes that following the RCC is not following God.
That's all you will ever get from that poster.
Do you expect me to post some false teaching?

Someone who claims to know what is in the hearts of people and what God means as He speaks through the scriptures.
Those who are His (born again) will have the discernment to do that. Catholics tell us what's in their hearts and that is the RCC words of men, not words of God.

If you don't have the same relationship with God as the poster has, then you don't know and can never know God.
according to His word as found in scripture.

please post where I ever said that. you can't. what does that say about what you post? As long as one is still breathing here on earth they can know Him. once you're dead there are no more opportunities to do that. The RCC doesn't teach anyone to know Him, to be part of His body, His church. It teaches you to part of it.

It's the same broken record over and over again. There's a word called hubris that fits perfectly.
yes, just like in scripture. Jesus and the apostles continually taught others to believe in and follow Him... not man.

that's your opinion of believing in and following Christ and His word, placing one's trust totally in Him. The reason catholics don't care much for Paul or his teachings, and why they don't have the desire within their hearts to read or study God's word - and believe it. Paul had total confidence in what he was taught and believed and what he taught to others.

I'd say it applies to catholics and the RCC men - men unworthy of believing in and following. They are the ones who are like that and it shows in those who follow the words of the RCC men.

There is only one Lord and Savior - Christ.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
We don't reduce things to the bare minimum. We just don't make the grand claims your church does. Your own ccc 1129 says the sacraments are necessary for salvation..so it's a legitimate question.
They are; in a relative sense. There is a distinction between "necessity of means" and "necessity by precept."

Baptism in some form is necessary for salvation; that is, without Baptism in some form, salvation is not possible. The rest of the sacraments are necessary in a relative sense; that is, necessary by precept. This means that salvation is possible without them for the individual, but they are a necessary component of what it means to be the Body of Christ on earth. That also means that all things being equal the individual should want to participate in the sacramental life of the Church----unless legitimately prevented from doing so by things nut under the control of the individual. Sickness, emergencies, etc.
 
Top