Absolutely false. The Catholic "church" has ruled that without the sacraments, you forfeit your salvation. You simply cannot be saved.
No, she has not. If a a person willfully rejects God and his mercy, then he cannot be saved,. But no Catholic, not even the Pope, can make that judgement. But you do.
From Catholic.com: "
Since the sacraments are the ordinary means through which Christ offers the grace necessary for salvation, and the Catholic Church that Christ established is the ordinary minister of those sacraments, it is appropriate to state that salvation comes through the Church."
"Since Jesus established the Catholic Church as necessary for salvation, those who knowingly and willingly reject him or his Church cannot be saved."
What "No Salvation Outside the Church" Means | Catholic Answers
What part of "ordinary means" don't you understand? "Knowingly and willingly reject him" covers a lot of territory. You can't reject what you don't know. You fall into the category of "not knowing". Intellectual assent has it's place, but it isn't conviction. We see you as separated from the Church, but still a part of the Church whether you like it or not. Taking one sentence out of an article completely out of context to force fit it into your agenda is straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. Read the whole thing. It doesn't say what you want it to say. And it's intended for Catholics, not for hostile anti-Catholics to slice-and-dice at your whim.
The Catechism says: "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 846)"
You are blind to the condition: "
knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ" the proactive word is "
knowing" which you can't seem to understand. In other words, you have to be a Catholic for this to apply.
Your "church" teaches; without performing the sacraments, through the Catholic church alone, no one can be saved.
No, you are interpreting through Protestant lens. Sacraments are not performed. You get entertainment and performances in Protestant churches, I've seen enough of them to know. You are pressing hard to make the Church look like some kind of exclusive salvation club. This conflicts with your misunderstanding:
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."[SUP]269[/SUP] The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism[SUP]270[/SUP] - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.[SUP]271
[/SUP]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."[SUP]272
[/SUP]
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"[SUP]273[/SUP] 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."[SUP]274[/SUP] 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,[SUP]275[/SUP] and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."[SUP]276
The Catholic Church hands out the olive branch to Protestants and some of you spit on it. [/SUP]
This is in direct contradiction to the Bible which says that all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. That whosoever believes in Jesus, shall have everlasting life. Salvation comes by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus alone. It is offered as a free gift apart from the sacraments of, and membership in, the Catholic "church".
Free gift, yes, not a free ticket. The Church recognizes salvation in other churches so she is not the all exclusive club you mistakenly think she is. You are projecting your man-made criteria onto the Church and it doesn't work. And it doesn't work on half the Protestant churches that disagree with you in varying degrees.
Do you think your "church" invented the word anathema? It did not. And it has always meant "cursed" or "damned." You can play all the word games you want, but you can't change the meaning, or what your "church's" councils intended by it's declarations.
Your terminology is outdated and unbiblical. Through generations of use, beginning even with the usage of St. Paul in the New Testament, anathema came to mean something other than its literal, etymological meaning — particularly in Latin, and particularly in the councils of the Church. Anathema sit (“Let him be anathema”) became a legal formula, something repeated by the councils to announce a particular, traditional judgment. When the councils pronounced holders of a doctrine anathema, it marked a formal excommunication from the Church: nothing more and nothing less.
Excommunication, too, is often misunderstood; even though it is a biblical doctrine that many Protestants practice (I have heard them refer to it euphemistically as “disfellowship,” but the concept is the same): to remove one who is unrepentant in sin or incorrigibly teaching error from one’s church body, as St. Paul recommended in
1 Corinthians 5, even using language evocative of anathema (“deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh”,
v. 5).
But the Catholic Church’s model of excommunication is just as St. Paul’s: it is not a pronouncement of eternal damnation, but a disciplinary measure designed to motivate the sinner to repentance and reconciliation. The full verse above reads, “Deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” The goal of excommunication is not damnation, but salvation. It is the Church’s mission to love and lead the lost to salvation in Christ, not to hate or damn to hell (hello Westboro Baptist Church). Excommunication is tough love, the Holy Mother Church kicking her prodigal son out of the house until he gets his act together. And just as with the father of the prodigal son (
Luke 15:11–32), it is the Church’s great joy to accept and embrace her lost son back as soon as he repents and seeks forgiveness (cf.
2 Corinthians 2:5–11).
“Let him be Anathema”: Not what many Protestants think it means | The Lonely Pilgrim
I discussed this in post #943. Scroll up. Either you missed it or ignored it.
Was the Church wrong in declaring anathema on the heretic Arius for his blasphemous teachings?
Was the Church wrong in declaring anathema on Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)?
Pelagianism (5th Century)?
Nestorianism (5th Century)?
Catharism (11th Century)?
No, Budman, it's not me that is fixed on a pre-New Testament meaning of anathema. Maybe you would like to embrace all the heretics who were anathematized because you don't like how the Church used the term (no longer used by the Church for 500 years so you are blowing hot air over nothing. )
21. Many Protestants take a dim view towards Christian history in general, esp. the years from 313 (Constantine's conversion) to 1517 (Luther's arrival). This ignorance and hostility to Catholic Tradition leads to theological relativism, anti-Catholicism, and a constant, unnecessary process of "reinventing the wheel." 150 Reasons Why I'm Catholic (You Should Be Too!)
You won't reply because you have no defense. Instead, you personally insult. But okay, I'll play your little game:
I don't insult people, I challenge arrogant bigotry and lies. Go over all my post and quote where I have directly insulted or attacked a person. Good luck, you will need it.
Did Jesus pay for all sin, for all people, for all time, by His sacrifice on the cross? And if so, what is there left to atone for?
Jesus redeemed the human race, but we play a part in our salvation, a free gift, not a ticket. This post is already too long. What you are demanding is a 20 page treatise on soteriology that you would ignore anyway. Here's a helpful link:
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Salvation, Justification, and "Faith Alone" (Index Page for Dave Armstrong)