Expert: Elder Greg Madden - 3/28/2007

Question
QUESTION: Hello again Greg,

Your post quoting the catechism is not sufficient to show the church has ever condemned anyone.  The catechism speaks in generalities about the Christian faith.  The catachism names no one by name who is in hell or is going to hell.  For the church to say outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation only said outside the faith of the church which is faith in Christ, there is no salvaion.  Since all churches and sects stem from the Catholic faith "all" fall under her umbrella, though not in perfect communion.  The catechism stipulates this also though you did not post that part.  My point still stands.  The church has never condemned or said who is going or not going anywhere.  Again, she names no one for she knows that is the Lords to say.  We are to judge peoples moral actions or there external works, not there internal motives.  Therefore again for you to say this group or that group is not saved is saying they are not going to heaven.  If you want to comment on people moral actions and judge whether those actions are right or wrong by all means...that is righteous judgement.
ANSWER: MM,

Thank you for your reply. You say that my postings of the catechism's is not enough to show that the catholic church has ever said someone is going to hell? And that it does not name anyone by name who is? Hmm? It does say that those who are not apart of the catholic church are, and I quote...
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
With all due respect Mr Nall, this sound like condemnation to me. This is saying, as you put it "...this group or that group is not saved is saying they are not going to heaven."
And while I am thinking about it, I never "named" anyone who was going to hell either. I said what Christ said, that only those who are born-again are going to heaven.

You said...
"For the church to say outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation only said outside the faith of the church which is faith in Christ, there is no salvation."
So those who disagree with the catholic plan of salvation are not going to heaven? Sounds like that is what you are saying, but then you said something that seems to contradict what you just said...
"Since all churches and sects stem from the Catholic faith "all" fall under her umbrella, though not in perfect communion."
One statement saying only those who follow the catholic means of salvation are going to heaven, then you say that "all" churches and sects fall under Romes umbrella? Am I an unwitting follower of rome? I think not. But once again, no disrespect my friend, but that is an oxymoron.

It seems that your point does not stand. However, I am by no means above misunderstand what your are trying to say  so please, feel free to try and clear this up for me.

There is also the matter of the popes of the past who clearly stated that only catholics are going to heaven. I am not sure if this slipped your notice, or perhaps not. What of these?

MM, if any of what I have written comes across harsh, please know that it is not my intention to do so. This form of communication lends itself to many misunderstandings. Let us continue our discussion with civility.  Thank you.

God Bless,
Elder Greg





---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Greg,

Please do not take my words as being anything but defense for my position.  I am not mad or angry when I write them.  I notice that is a common defense of some to call the person defending their position "angry".  Now, did you purposefully leave out these statements from the Catechism:

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"[273] 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, as well as visible elements."[274] 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 him,[275] and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."[276]

before this statement there is this:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."[272]

You see Greg.  The church does not condemn others to hell, but truly explains the divisions among us and how we should regard each other.  No oxymoron, the Catechism explains that "umbrella" I spoke of earlier.  As far as Popes go, unless speaking "Ex Cathedra" ie from the chair, there words are not taken as infallible and do not have to weight of doctrine.  Those outside the catholic church will indeed suffer the judgement of their beliefs, but let me ask you this, since the catechism is very plain about the rights of those who are justified by faith in Baptism and incorporated into Christ being called Christians, where is the condemnation of the church you speak of?  Outside the Catholic Church is defined and whether you like it or not your beliefs come from the Catholic Church.  Where does you church get the concept of Baptism?  From the bible and the tradition of the Apostles as recorded by them and their successors, in other words, the Catholic Church.  How about the concept of celebrating the "Lords Supper" or "Eucharist"?  Again, same answer.  Look at most practices or doctrines of any church and you see those doctrines have their genesis in the Catholic Church.  The umbrella is wide to encompass all who have faith in Christ whether in full or imperfect communion with Rome.  History shows that indeed there was only one church before the so called Reformation.  She was Catholic.  The Roman Catholic in the west, the Eastern Catholics or Orthodox as they came to be known after the 1054 schism in the east.  The most interesting thing about all the varies Eastern, Orthodox, and Catholic churches is that they all share the same 7 sacraments.  That shows the unity that once was in that we all share them.  It is only the Reformation sects that do not share that unity in that each chooses to regard what they deem sacrament or not.  I would suppose you have two in your church.  Baptism and Holy Communion.  Though you probably do not officially call them sacraments for fear of sounding well......Catholic.    Peace be with you.

M.M>  

Answer
MM,

I apologize again for the late reply. It's been rather stormy around here in the "tornado belt".

No, it is not my "common defense" to say that you sounded angry, it just sound that way to me.

I will quickly address the questions you asked...

1."Where does you church get the concept of Baptism?"

From the Holy Bible, written by the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 28:19  
Acts 2:38
 
2"How about the concept of celebrating the "Lords Supper" or "Eucharist"

From the Holy Bible, written by the Holy Spirit.
Luke 22:14-20
1 Cor. 11:23-33

MM, no, I did not "...purposefully leave out these statements from the Catechism..." But you prove my point that the catholic church's dependence upon the traditions of man, rather than simply relying upon the Holy Bible. MM, you know as well as I do that men change, the theories and ideas of men change, the creeds of men change, and yes even the catechism of man change. But the Holy Bible does not. I know that you say that it is only when rome's pope speaks (as you say) "Ex Cathedra" that he is infallible. But this again proves my point. Every pope is a man, and men (no matter what position they hold, or where they sit) will always be fallible.

Mr Nall, I think we have reached an impasse on this subject. If you will a school yard "Yes you did" "No I didn't" debate. I suggest that we pursue the another subjects you brought up, if you are willing? I would like to discuss any of them, but with a few parameters.

1. That we discuss one subject at a time. Like yourself, I have noticed that many of those who write me like to "jump around" to differing subjects.

2. That you would either erase you past answers when you write back, or start a new question with each rely. As you can tell, this gets rather lengthy and difficult to read.

3. This last request may be a sticking point with you. As you know, I do not recognize the catholic church's catechisms'. I do not mind addressing them from a Biblical perspective (ie. whether a catechism is Biblically based or not) but I will not accept anymore references to them as basis for any doctrine that rome espouses. Mr Nall, if it cannot be proven from the Holy Bible, then it will be rejected. After all, one of my criticisms' of rome is it's reliance upon man-made traditions.   

Please let me know if this acceptable to you. I will understand if you decline to adhere to these three requests.

God Bless,
Elder Greg