Comments on: Who is saved: the Catholic priests in the religion founded Joke or pastors began their own church?

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:12:29 +0000

You will not like that answer, probably, but both have the potential to be saved or unsaved.
Because just because someone is a priest or pastor does not mean that we are saved.
And just because a man of God is not a priest does not mean it will be saved.
You read the script and you see what it says about who is "saved."
Well - I brace for all the thumbs down from the Catholics who were angry at this response.

By: scotgirl

scotgirl — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:12:29 +0000

We Catholics believe that people of different religions have the same opportunity to go to heaven, because God is fair and since Jesus died for all mankind.

By: serious_

serious_ — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:12:29 +0000

Why does not everyone?
Although the Catholic Church believes that it is "the greatest example" of the mystery that is the Church of Christ, she does not argue that non-Catholic churches are not really Christians.
The Catholic Church teaches:
Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God, the life of grace, faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and as visible elements.
Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church.
All these blessings come from Christ and lead to it.
For more information, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 819: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1s …
With love in Christ.

By: imacatho

imacatho — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:12:29 +0000

Brace you: HERE COMES MY FAVORITE ANSWER:
Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). This means that the Church will never be destroyed and never deviate from it. His Church will survive until their return.
Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. All other Christian churches is a branch of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the Pope in 1054. Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (The majority of Protestant churches of today are subsidiaries of the original Protestant branches.) Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the V century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history: Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy.
The Catholic Church has existed for almost 2000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the divine origin of the Church: Any merely human organization would have collapsed long ago. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with 1.3 million members: one sixth part of the human race), and is not a testament to the ability of Church leaders but the protection of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is called the Catholic Church ( "universal" in Greek), as is his gift to everyone. He told his apostles to the whole world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matthew 28:19-20). For 2000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and he wants us all to become members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28). Today the Catholic Church is in every country in the world and continues to send missionaries to "make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19). Jesus established the church was known for its more common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. Apparently the title was old at the time of Ignatius, which means that all the way back to the days of the apostles. http://www.catholic.com/library/Pillar.a …
ANOTHER MIGHTY Cut and Paste
YEEEHHAAAAWWWWWWWWWW

By: Catholic Crusader

Catholic Crusader — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:12:29 +0000

Everything depends on Jesus, but if everything is in line with Catholic doctrine in the Catechism, then the priest.

By: Midge

Midge — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:12:29 +0000

This is what a lawyer would call a question, or perhaps "the burden" is better. You are not asking, you are saying. That defeats the purpose of Yahoo Answers. Are demanding that the purchase meets your assumption that Catholicism and now formed some sort of uninterrupted continuity with the Church founded by Jesus and his apostles. Which requires the response to exit the way you want. That is good for the legal profession, but in this case I do not buy the premise. Come to think of this continuity that presume to be there. There are several forms of creation. CC, for example, uses the argument of the papal succession. However, the testimony of the Fathers is in disagreement with the Rome declaration on the alleged Biblical support Petrine Supremacy, an essential precursor for the papal succession. In Matthew 16, Peter confesses that Jesus is the Messiah, and Jesus responds with the famous, "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church." Catholic apologists insist without evidence that "this rock" is identical with Peter himself.
However, Cyril, a favorite with Father Romano persuasionists takes the "Protestant" position that "the confession of their faith became the foundation for the Church." See Commentary on the Gospel of Luke Homily 53. In a dissent in this text as evidence of breaking the uniform testimony of the Fathers, it seems unlikely that the Romans the interpretation of this passage can pass bond "dogma", even according to Roman standards. There are a number of other, less arguments, but time is beyond us, so we conclude this section by saying that Petrine supremacy is not an argument of security, speaking Scripturally. In fact, this is Peter in the New Testament as a text of equal station to the other apostles, even when subjected to the authority of Paul in Galatia dispute. If the count is that the Church has affirmed the Petrine primacy, and therefore must be true because the church in the acts of the authority of Peter, hope you can see the hopeless circularity of this argument.
CC also uses the argument of the nomenclature, the fact that the early church was sometimes called "Catholic." It is very interesting, but hardly evidence of a lineage. Church was called "universal" church of the first century? Okay. Protestants generally agree. There is a body of believers united in spirit on the separations of time and space. How to identify the institution that represents this church? CC does not tell us. It simply assumes that the early church was completely Roman in character. But this is once again painfully circular. Because the early church was called "Catholic", which was Roman, simply because the modern version of the church with the same name who happens to be called "Catholic?" Surely you must realize that continuity of name does not guarantee the continuity of the mission. For example, the Pharisees sat on the seat of Moses, according to Jesus, even though they had perverted the mission of Jesus, Moses called vipers so badly, strongly suggesting that there was no evidence of continuity.
CC's weakest argument is the bald assertion that all the other historic churches are affiliates of the "Catholic" church. As with its other arguments, this begs the question of the original character of the early church. Shoots held that the "true line of continuity? I resemble stem cells. In the early days of the church, many discussions and clarifications of the doctrine had not yet occurred. The mental templates used by parents to talk about theology in a more general sense, and not linked to the more refined categories that emerge later. Thus, Cyril could not refer to Peter as pastor, in his own mind, which implies the exclusion of the other apostles, as an authority within its own sphere of competence, as the sole mission of Paul to the gentiles. Therefore, parents and post the Scripture with their characteristic Roman, like the papacy (which was largely the descendants of Constantine's religious-political synthesis) is read into the text things that can not be objectively there.
What then remains as a means of finding the true Church? If we were to look for the Padres for an example, we might consider Athanasius. Athanasius did rely on to confront the Arians, even when it seemed almost all the other bishops of Christendom was opposed to it? How to take your stand against mundum (against the world) to identify the true Christian faith? He went to the Book! For example, he was prepared to challenge any of the institutional authorities any name and any claim to the succession to defend the biblical truth of the Trinity. He sought a continuation, not a name or claims or position of power, but really, the content of Scripture and the teaching. If that continuity can be found, the Gospel can be found, and where the Gospel can be found, men and women can be saved.
Jesus confronted the woman at the well with the idea that the truth beyond the institutions. She was upset about whether the proper place for worship was Jerusalem or Samaria. Jesus said that the timing of ending the geographically based, that the Father seeks those who worship him in spirit and in truth. No one can say Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:3. Pope Benedict XVI countermands this, and declares to all who are not in communion with Rome as "ecclesial communities", but it is not true churches. Jesus taught that when two or three are gathered in his name, He is there. Matthew 18:20. I am so in trouble (not)! Who should I believe? Jesus, the real leader of the church, and Ratzinger, head of what used to be called the Inquisition? Thanks for trying, CC, but I will draw my continuity with the early church through the words and spirit of Jesus, so that the spirit of the Lord, there is liberty. 2 Corinthians 3:17.

By: Lynchbur

Lynchbur — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:12:29 +0000

I wonder how one could arrogant trying to suggest that a direct line and say more knowledge bibilcal CJ.
The question is ridiculous.
Last call is not ours.

By: theladyg

theladyg — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:12:29 +0000

God save those who are not only worthy of a group. I think even people who do not believe in God can still do that even to heaven one day. He knows what is in our hearts and judges us accordingly.

By: jameson

jameson — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:12:29 +0000

Consequently, neither, or one or the other.

By: Wanna bite?

Wanna bite? — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:12:29 +0000

Some priests are saved and some are not. Some pastors are saved and others not. I know I'm about to catch it, but that I imagine some parents are in hell. I know that at least he was a heretic after his death it was surely to hell. I am referring to the heretics are not going to heaven right?
Also Jesus did not found a religion. He founded a church. That the church is not Catholicism. That the church is composed of all believers.