Acts 4:12, Marian dogmas, and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

[Wesrock]

One of the tough parts about being Catholic is acknowledging one of the basics of Catholic belief: that the Church is the one Jesus founded, not an off-shoot, not a get back to the roots movement, but the actual very Church that Jesus founded in his apostles intentionally, and furthermore that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to the Church, his bride and body, to protect it from ever making an error in matters or dogma or doctrine on faith and morals.

So perhaps the issue from the Church’s standpoint is that it’s less about Mary and more about denying a core truth the Catholic Church professes. Denying the Marian dogmas isn’t just denying the Marian dogmas, it’s denying the Church that Jesus founded and the promises he made to it. To deny dogma kind of undermines everything it means to be a Catholic, not because of Mary herself, but what the denial of those dogmas also implicitly denies: Jesus’ church.

I’m being redundant. That’s not to say we can’t doubt and struggle, but even so we’re called to understand our doubt is something to be worked on.

That is probably completely alien to Protestant thought, and that’s certainly not something anti-authority Americans (note: all of us Americans have anti-authority sentiments ingrained in us at birth) find easy to accept.

 

[Wesrock]

I think you’rd probably familiar with the bind and loose quotes, and Pentecost, and other often quoted scripture. After completing the previous post, I could not help but think of Ephesians 5: 21-33.

21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church; 33 however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Re-read it again, except in everything read it as concerning Christ and the Church, which Paul is obviously commenting on, for to Paul human marriage is just a type of the covenant between Christ and the Church.

Edit: On second thought, my last comment was irrelevant, as Paul’s quite explicit in what he’s referring to. I don’t know if I’m trying to prove anything, it just strikes me as quite beautiful.

 

[DavidFilmer]

So if I must believe any Marian dogma, to enter the church in which we say we find salvation, then isn’t that putting another name under heaven, in the sense that if we don’t believe the dogma, we can’t enter the church that saves us

As I’ve replied to others, if you’re a Baptized Christian then you are already in the Church that saves us! Stay away from mortal sin and we will sing the praises of the Lord together in heaven.

The Catholic Church does not believe in a distinctly different protestant church. As long as you practice valid Christian Baptism you are PART of the Catholic Church (albeit imperfectly). You’re already in the Church that saves us! (but you could do it better if you convert.)

And, as I’ve replied to others, no Catholic is required to believe any dogma as a condition of becoming or remaining a Catholic. A Catholic may have doubts about any dogma and yet remain a faithful son or daughter of the Church. A Catholic may even doubt in God himself, which, obviously, means he categorically doubts each and every dogma of the Church. As long as he realizes his doubts are a flaw and makes an ongoing effort to correct them (and doesn’t try to promote them), he remains a faithful Catholic free from sin and may fully participate in the Sacraments.

 

[steve_b]

It (Immaculate Conception / Assumption) is dogmatically declared.

But I don’t understand your association of these dogmas with extra ecclesiam nulla salus. You realize, don’t you, that (according to Catholics) YOU are also a member of this ecclesiam (assuming you have received valid Christian Baptism).

Is There Really "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church …
D:

But we don’t expect you to accept imaculate Conception or Assumption.

If they come into the Church they do
D:

Most protestants receive valid Christian Baptism and all the Saving Grace that goes along with it.

At the moment of baptism that is true. After that , there is no gurantee of salvation moving forward if they don’t remain in the state of grace
D:

They are thus united with the Catholic Church, albeit imperfectly (but validly). A Baptized protestant who dies free of mortal sin is assured the same salvation as a Catholic.

providing they are innocently ignorant of the need to be Catholic.

 

[steve_b]

As I’ve replied to others, if you’re a Baptized Christian then you are already in the Church that saves us! Stay away from mortal sin and we will sing the praises of the Lord together in heaven.

The Catholic Church does not believe in a distinctly different protestant church. As long as you practice valid Christian Baptism you are PART of the Catholic Church (albeit imperfectly). You’re already in the Church that saves us! (but you could do it better if you convert.)

And, as I’ve replied to others, no Catholic is required to believe any dogma as a condition of becoming or remaining a Catholic.

That describes a heretic
D:

A Catholic may have doubts about any dogma and yet remain a faithful son or daughter of the Church.

here are some definitions

**2089 ***Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
D:

A Catholic may even doubt in God himself, which, obviously, means he categorically doubts each and every dogma of the Church. As long as he realizes his doubts are a flaw and makes an ongoing effort to correct them (and doesn’t try to promote them), he remains a faithful Catholic free from sin and may fully participate in the Sacraments.

Look at the definitions above.

 

[DavidFilmer]

If they come into the Church they do

You’re right. I was not precise in my language. We expect them to accept these dogmas. I shouild have said we do not expect them to believe these dogmas. As I said, converts must acknowledge their disbelief is a personal flaw, meaning (by extension) they must accept the idea that the Church is right and they are wrong, even if they cannot explain how this is possible.

But the Church does not expect the protestants that I addressed to either believe or accept these dogmas. They are Catholic (albeit imperfectly) by their Christian Baptism, but are not held to the same expectations as professed Catholics.

At the moment of baptism that is true. After that , there is no gurantee of salvation moving forward if they don’t remain in the state of grace

Yeah, that’s what I said. I phrased it, “stay away from mortal sin,” but it’s the same thing.

providing they are innocently ignorant of the need to be Catholic.

When I talk about these things, I’m talking about people of good will, not gangsters or committed sinners. I presume, in charity, that any intelligent person of good will who becomes aware of the truth of the Catholic Church would desire to be part of that Church (as I did). If an intelligent person of good will became aware but still refused, I think that some impediment must likely exist, such as family opposition (my dad was an Anglican priest, so I know a little about this). Notwithstanding Our Lord’s words in Matt 10:34 (I come not to bring peace, but a sword…) this could be considered a factor which could diminish complete consent (making the sin venial only, at most).

 

[DavidFilmer]

That describes a heretic

here are some definitions

**2089 ***Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

You refute your own point. Heresy is the OBSTINATE denial of truth. Not the unwilling denial of someone who recognizes that his doubt is a personal flaw and seeks to reconcile himself.

You can’t just delete words from Church teaching to fit your opinions. Since you kindly gave me the definition of heresy, I will reciprocate with the definition of the word “obstinate”

stubbornly refusing to change one’s opinion or chosen course of action, despite attempts to persuade one to do so.

The only person here to talk about obstinate refusal to believe is YOU (as usual - you cannot differentiate between innocent and obstinate disbelief).

 

[frangiuliano115]

This is not true. The Church does not expect converts to be fully formed in their faith and beliefs as a condition of entry into the Church.

Any Catholic (cradle or convert) may doubt any dogma and not incur sin, provided s/he realizes the doubt is a personal fault and makes an ongoing effort to correct it. A Catholic may publicly say he has doubts about a doctrine (but he may not promote his doubts as an alternate belief).

Of course, if converts doubt major dogmas of the Church, why in the world would they convert? I think converts tend to have fewer doubts, but they are not required to.

FWIW, I still had doubts about Assumption on the day I was received into the Church, and I was on the fence about Immaculate Conception. My priest knew this (because I talked with him about it). It was not an impediment or a secret.

You’re correct in all you say and I’m acknowleding it for any readers.

I have a way of going to the point and try to quickly side-step side issues and thus the misunderstanding. I guess I’m going to have to stop doing this since my statements are many times misunderstood.

I wasn’t saying that you have to lie. You do have to accept catholic dogma. We’re told that if you don’t, you’re not really even catholic! But doubts we all might have. So if you’re a convert you have to at least say that you’re going to pray and keep learning and trying to accept. I think I said that.

Sorry about the lie thing. There was another post about this.

Most converts have a problem with purgatory and Mary. Because it is always misrepresented to them by other churches and it’s difficult in a year to learn all there is to know about catholicism.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

FROM DAVID FILMER

**But the Church does not expect the protestants that I addressed to either believe or accept these dogmas. They are Catholic (albeit imperfectly) by their Christian Baptism, but are not held to the same expectations as professed Catholics.
Quote:
**

This is interesting to me because of the meaning of the word “catholic”. I’ve often thought that maybe we should refer to our church as Roman Catholic and not just Catholic.
which I do too , BTW. After all, not too many know the difference.

God bless

 

[DavidFilmer]

This is interesting to me because of the meaning of the word “catholic”. I’ve often thought that maybe we should refer to our church as Roman Catholic and not just Catholic.

Protestants are Catholic (imperfectly) because Baptism is the rite of Catholic initiation. There is not a Catholic baptism and a protestant Baptism. All valid Baptism is Catholic Baptism, even if the minister is not affiliated with the Catholic Church. Heck, the minister doesn’t even need to be Baptized!

They are not part of the “Roman” Catholic Church, but the “Roman” Catholic Church is part of the same Catholic Church as protestants.

Protestants are Catholic, and they don’t even know it! They don’t believe in Catholic Sacraments, but they have received one!

 

[frangiuliano115]

Protestants are Catholic (imperfectly) because Baptism is the rite of Catholic initiation. There is not a Catholic baptism and a protestant Baptism. All valid Baptism is Catholic Baptism, even if the minister is not affiliated with the Catholic Church. Heck, the minister doesn’t even need to be Baptized!

They are not part of the “Roman” Catholic Church, but the “Roman” Catholic Church is part of the same Catholic Church as protestants.

Protestants are Catholic, and they don’t even know it! They don’t believe in Catholic Sacraments, but they have received one!

Yes. Exactly, and thanks for explaining it so well.

An aside. You say:

**2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, **

Regarding the meaning of heresy. A friend of mine (VERY traditional) told me that if I don’t believe EVERY dogma, I can’t consider myself catholic.

Didn’t argue with her but I had spoken to a priest a few years ago re one that I really have a problem with and he did tell me that I had to pray about it and eventually come to believe it. He was rather shocked that I couldn’t just accept it since I gave him the theological reason why I was having a problem with it. The above definition is declaring me a heretic!

Hope steve b doesn’t see this!

God bless

 

[steve_b]

You refute your own point. Heresy is the OBSTINATE denial of truth. Not the unwilling denial of someone who recognizes that his doubt is a personal flaw and seeks to reconcile himself. You can’t just delete words from Church teaching to fit your opinions.

why didn’t you finish the quote?

"*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;"

therefore, don’t lecture ME on deleting words
D:

Since you kindly gave me the definition of heresy, I will reciprocate with the definition of the word “obstinate”

“stubbornly refusing to change one’s opinion or chosen course of action, despite attempts to persuade one to do so.”

And obstinate also goes with doubt as well, which you left out.

So which term do you want to take possession of in your previous post, obstinate denial, or obstinate doubt
D:

The only person here to talk about obstinate refusal to believe is YOU (as usual - you cannot differentiate between innocent and obstinate disbelief).

I used Innocent while refering to ignorance.

And Ignorance is NOT always innocent 1791

 

[DavidFilmer]

A friend of mine (VERY traditional) told me that if I don’t believe EVERY dogma, I can’t consider myself catholic.

Say Hello to steve for me.

And then ask him to give you a list of every dogma (because you wouldn’t want to miss one). Then watch the steam come out of his ears. There’s no such list.

The above definition is declaring me a heretic

I try to be careful to use the word “doubt.” The words “reject” or “deny” (which is the word used in the CCC concerning heresy) have a sense of deliberate refusal to believe (which is the meaning of the other word the CCC uses, “obstinate”).

I don’t even like saying “disbelieve.” The word “doubt” implies a proclivity to disbelieve but openness to consider the question. Doubts are not sinful if they are not willful (nothing is).

The Church even has a term for these doubts: a crisis of faith. Even great Saints and Doctors of the Church have had a crisis of faith at some time. A crisis of faith is not sinful, but obstinate denial (ie, heresy) is.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Say Hello to steve for me.

And then ask him to give you a list of every dogma (because you wouldn’t want to miss one). Then watch the steam come out of his ears. There’s no such list.

I try to be careful to use the word “doubt.” The words “reject” or “deny” (which is the word used in the CCC concerning heresy) have a sense of deliberate refusal to believe (which is the meaning of the other word the CCC uses, “obstinate”).

I don’t even like saying “disbelieve.” The word “doubt” implies a proclivity to disbelieve but openness to consider the question. Doubts are not sinful if they are not willful (nothing is).

The Church even has a term for these doubts: a crisis of faith. Even great Saints and Doctors of the Church have had a crisis of faith at some time. A crisis of faith is not sinful, but obstinate denial (ie, heresy) is.

I’d like to say this.

I don’t argue with that very traditional friend of mine because she likes to put God into a box, but I have a feeling He doesn’t like being there.

I sometimes wish Jesus would have been clearer and more precise about EVERYTHING. It would have saved the church from having to write the CCC - which is not the easiest book to understand. I’ve done lessons from it for kids (to age 13) and yes, people could come up with different meanings.

So thank God that it’s not our doctrine that saves us, or our understanding of a doctrine OR of a dogma, but it’s only our belief in Christ.

But these conversations are very interesting nontheless. (and also informative).

God bless you

 

[steve_b]

You’re right. I was not precise in my language. We expect them to accept these dogmas. I shouild have said we do not expect them to believe these dogmas.

We expect converts to accept AND believe all dogmas.
D:

As I said, converts must acknowledge their disbelief is a personal flaw, meaning (by extension) they must accept the idea that the Church is right and they are wrong, even if they cannot explain how this is possible.

We expect converts to accept and believe all dogmas
D:

But the Church does not expect the protestants that I addressed to either believe or accept these dogmas.

If they are entering the Church they will have to accept and believe all dogmas
D:

They are Catholic (albeit imperfectly) by their Christian Baptism, but are not held to the same expectations as professed Catholics.

They are NOT Catholic…yet. They will be Catholic when they officially enter the Church.
D:

If an intelligent person of good will became aware but still refused, I think that some impediment must likely exist, such as family opposition (my dad was an Anglican priest, so I know a little about this). Notwithstanding Our Lord’s words in Matt 10:34 (I come not to bring peace, but a sword…) this could be considered a factor which could diminish complete consent (making the sin venial only, at most).

Here’s how how Jesus connected it
Matthew 10:35-37

 

[DavidFilmer]

So thank God that it’s not our doctrine that saves us, or our understanding of a doctrine OR of a dogma, but it’s only our belief in Christ.

Actually, belief (for us) is optional. Baptism is what saves us (and most Catholics are baptized as infants, when personal belief is impossible).

If you are Baptized and die without mortal sin you are assured salvation.

 

[DavidFilmer]

We expect converts to accept AND believe all dogmas.

We might expect it, but we do not enforce it. We do not withhold reception because someone has unwilling doubt.

If they are entering the Church they will have to accept and believe all dogmas

Then give me a list of all dogmas. If they gotta believe all of them, they should at least know what all of them are. What? Nothing?

They are NOT Catholic…yet. They will be Catholic when they officially enter the Church.

Then what church were they Baptized into? You can’t be Baptized in the Methodist Church, because the Methodist Church doesn’t have Baptism. There’s no such thing as Methodist Baptism, only Catholic Baptism conducted by Methodists.

Or are you saying there’s more than one kind of Christian Baptism? Hang on, lemme double-check that definition of “heresy” that you gave me…

Here’s how how Jesus connected it

That’s the passage I cited. You’ll have to connect those dots for me, I’m afraid.

 

[Wesrock]

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

---

Wounds to unity

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."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - 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.271

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

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

…

My understanding is that there is one Church. All of the validly baptised are in at least partial communion with it. They are not Catholic, though.

 

[KEP1983]

In acts 15 we see the apostles declaring that all believers must accept a teaching about circumcision. It was binding on the entire church. It had nothing to do with “Jesus name.” Does that mean the apostles were wrong for making a binding teaching regarding genital skin on all believers?

Of course not.

The phrase that we find salvation only in the name of jesus doesn’t mean the church can’t bind a teaching about anything other than jesus. It simply means that all salvation and grace comes from Him.

 

[steve_b]

We might expect it, but we do not enforce it. We do not withhold reception because someone has unwilling doubt.

Is that what you taught people in RCIA?
D:

Then give me a list of all dogmas. If they gotta believe all of them, they should at least know what all of them are. What? Nothing?

Even if a Catholic can’t list them all, they implicitly believe them, in the sense that they believe in the Catholic Church and the Church has received from Christ the authority to declare certain doctrines as being revealed by God. Therefore they believe any of these revealed doctrines if they were informed about them.

What you keep saying in your narrative, in different ways, is incompatible with Catholicism.

In effect you say one doesn’t have to believe in a doctrine even though one knows that the Church has declared it to be divinely revealed, and you say they are still a Catholic. That’s the discription of heresy and would put one outside the Church (even though one’s baptism would remain valid).
D:

Then what church were they Baptized into? You can’t be Baptized in the Methodist Church, because the Methodist Church doesn’t have Baptism. There’s no such thing as Methodist Baptism, only Catholic Baptism conducted by Methodists.

One who is validly baptized outside the Catholic Church, still needs to be received into the Catholic Church if /when they decide some day to make that choice to become Catholic.
D:

Or are you saying there’s more than one kind of Christian Baptism? Hang on, lemme double-check that definition of “heresy” that you gave me…

get a grip

Let’s take a gateway sacrament. Can a protestant, walk off the street and receive the sacrament of rexoncilliation in the Catholic Church?

http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...ed-on-the-lord-may-i-confess-my-sins-to-a-pri
D:

That’s the passage I cited. You’ll have to connect those dots for me, I’m afraid.

Jesus connected the dots, not me.