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

[KEP1983]

frangiuliano115, you asked a few basic questions:

1. where does the church teach that the decision in Acts 15 is dogma? (that not requiring gentiles to keep the Jewish law by cutting their genitals)

The text itself says that they bound the entire church to the teaching in Acts 15 itself.

If you’re asking about an ecumenical council deciding on the subject, then I’d point you to the council of trent, session 6, canons 1-3, which state that we can’t be justified by works of any law, which would include the Jewish law and circumcision.

You then ask
2) where has the church ever declared that you have to confess anything regarding the person’s of the Father or holy spirit?

That’s exactly what the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople were over. There are most certainly dogmas regarding the Father and Holy Spirit that we must accept also.

I.e. modalism is a heresy that deals with the nature of the Father and Holy Spirit. Same thing with patripassianism. Or unitarianism. Or a plethora of other heresies that we’re bound to reject.

Anyways, no one has been able to address the number one underlying premise of Kliska. I’ve asked it 5 times already and no one has addressed it. If Kliska gets this part wrong her entire argument falls apart.

The phrase “only in the name of” comes directly after “salvation is found THROUGH.” Clearly the verse is indicating that christ is the source of our salvation. The verse is obviously indicating that the grace that merited salvation came from him. It’s not talking about whether or not the Church can make binding declarations about anything other than jesus.

I’ve asked this 5 times and both you and Kliska continue to ignore it. It’s the most basic underlying point to her argument. If her use of the phrase “only in the name of” is wrong then her argument falls apart.

 

[frangiuliano115]

frangiuliano115, you asked a few basic questions:

1. where does the church teach that the decision in Acts 15 is dogma? (that not requiring gentiles to keep the Jewish law by cutting their genitals)

The text itself says that they bound the entire church to the teaching in Acts 15 itself.

If you’re asking about an ecumenical council deciding on the subject, then I’d point you to the council of trent, session 6, canons 1-3, which state that we can’t be justified by works of any law, which would include the Jewish law and circumcision.

You then ask
2) where has the church ever declared that you have to confess anything regarding the person’s of the Father or holy spirit?

That’s exactly what the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople were over. There are most certainly dogmas regarding the Father and Holy Spirit that we must accept also.

I.e. modalism is a heresy that deals with the nature of the Father and Holy Spirit. Same thing with patripassianism. Or unitarianism. Or a plethora of other heresies that we’re bound to reject.

Anyways, no one has been able to address the number one underlying premise of Kliska. I’ve asked it 5 times already and no one has addressed it. If Kliska gets this part wrong her entire argument falls apart.

The phrase “only in the name of” comes directly after “salvation is found THROUGH.” Clearly the verse is indicating that christ is the source of our salvation. The verse is obviously indicating that the grace that merited salvation came from him. It’s not talking about whether or not the Church can make binding declarations about anything other than jesus.

I’ve asked this 5 times and both you and Kliska continue to ignore it. It’s the most basic underlying point to her argument. If her use of the phrase “only in the name of” is wrong then her argument falls apart.

It’s really later here and this will have to wait till tomorrow.

Just quick: I find the following interesting. You say:

**If you’re asking about an ecumenical council deciding on the subject, then I’d point you to the council of trent, session 6, canons 1-3, which state that we can’t be justified by works of any law, which would include the Jewish law and circumcision.
**

Without even looking anything up (will have to read session 6) I have to say that I’m an older person and can remember way back into the 50’s and 60’s.

We were taught that THE CHURCH saves us. All we had to do was go to church, go to confession and try to be good. This is works.

Now we’re taught that Jesus saves us and we must (or at least should) have a personal relationship with Him. And that we are saved by faith and that works FOLLOW faith.
This is grace.

Now you’re saying that the council of trent is saying that we can’t be justified by any works of any law.

If this is true I’ll be pretty upset because this means that the church has not changed its position after Vatican Council II but knew all along that works is law and you cannot be justified by works.

Too sleepy now. Wish I could do this now.

Regarding “only in the name of” will have to wait too. I feel like I’ve answered but you apparently don’t - so maybe I’ll just explain my position again.

But tomorrow.

God bless

 

[Brendan_64]

Heck, we don’t necessarily even require Catholics to believe these dogmas. It is expected, but a Catholic may doubt these (or any) dogmas without incurring sin (or excommunication) under certain circumstances.

Yes we do. As Catholics we are required to accept ALL Church teachings, every last one of them. Yes we may have doubts, but if we do doubt any Church teaching we are required to work to resolve these doubts with a firm aim to get rid of our doubts and fully believe these teachings. To hold obstinate doubts (i.e. doubts that we do not work to resolve) about any Church teachings is to be in a position of heresy.

 

[KEP1983]

We were taught that THE CHURCH saves us. All we had to do was go to church, go to confession and try to be good. This is works.

Now we’re taught that Jesus saves us and we must (or at least should) have a personal relationship with Him. And that we are saved by faith and that works FOLLOW faith.
This is grace.

It sounds like you haven’t been properly catechized, which is a very common problem.

Here’s the council of trent, session 6, canon 1:

“CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.”

If this is true I’ll be pretty upset because this means that the church has not changed its position after Vatican Council II but knew all along that works is law and you cannot be justified by works.

In all of your years as a catholic, did you ever decide to read the actual council documents, catechism, or even the old catholic encyclopedia regarding justification?

Regarding “only in the name of” will have to wait too. I feel like I’ve answered but you apparently don’t - so maybe I’ll just explain my position again.

No, I don’t think it’s even been addressed. Likewise, Kliska hasn’t even acknowledged my question, and I’ve asked her about 5 or 6 times now. She’s obviously read my messages because she gave detailed responses to other aspects of my posts.

The verse obviously means that salvation comes THROUGH Jesus alone. That’s the first half of the verse. You can’t just uplift the second half of the verse which has the phrase “in the name of” while ignoring the first half of the verse which says salvation is IN or THROUGH Jesus.

The verse has nothing to do with the church being unable to make dogmas about anything other than Jesus. The verse obviously means that Jesus is the source of our salvation.

If Kliska can’t support her interpretation then her argument completely falls apart.

 

[frangiuliano115]

It sounds like you haven’t been properly catechized, which is a very common problem.

Here’s the council of trent, session 6, canon 1:

“CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.”

In all of your years as a catholic, did you ever decide to read the actual council documents, catechism, or even the old catholic encyclopedia regarding justification?

No, I don’t think it’s even been addressed. Likewise, Kliska hasn’t even acknowledged my question, and I’ve asked her about 5 or 6 times now. She’s obviously read my messages because she gave detailed responses to other aspects of my posts.

The verse obviously means that salvation comes THROUGH Jesus alone. That’s the first half of the verse. You can’t just uplift the second half of the verse which has the phrase “in the name of” while ignoring the first half of the verse which says salvation is IN or THROUGH Jesus.

The verse has nothing to do with the church being unable to make dogmas about anything other than Jesus. The verse obviously means that Jesus is the source of our salvation.

If Kliska can’t support her interpretation then her argument completely falls apart.

You know KEP1983, back in post no. 81 and 82 (I think, can’t go back there to check) I had some hope of being able to speak with you.

That hope has been dashed. Since you think I haven’t been properly catechised, I don’t know how you could want to speak to me. I must be such an ignorant person, not having read all those canons, doctrines, dogmas and bulls.

I must say however, that all the priests I’ve worked with since I taught catechism till last year, would not agree with you.

God bless you
p.s. Will still check session 6 - if I could just understand it…

 

[DavidFilmer]

Is that what you taught people in RCIA?

Look, I’ve admitted that I was (probably) a poor RCIA director. But if one of my catechumins asked me, “I want to believe everything the Church teaches, but I’m having trouble with (this or that). Can I still be received?” I hope I would have told him “yes.” I’m pretty sure that’s what my priest would have told him.

What would you have told him?

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.

THAT’S WHAT I’M SAYING. Sheesh, you really have no concept of unintentional doubt. I might doubt the Copenhagen Interpretation (Erwin Schrödinger constructed a thought experiment involving a cat to show how silly (by reductio ad absurdum) this idea is). But (unlike Schrödinger) I might be willing to accept the idea because I respect Niels Bohr.

People can accept an idea without a committed internal belief.

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.

A person is formally a “Catholic” by receiving Baptism in the Catholic Church, or by receiving valid Catholic Baptism outside of the Catholic Faith and subsequently being received into the Church. A person remains a Catholic, even if he commits mortal sin, until (and unless) he is excommunicated, or formerly renounces his Faith.

A Catholic who has unwilling doubt does not formally renounce his Faith. Excommunication is a judicial act, not a doctrinal act, and is thus defined in Canon Law. Will you please cite for me the Canon that says that a Catholic who is experiencing unwilling doubt is excommunicated?

That’s the discription of heresy and would put one outside the Church (even though one’s baptism would remain valid).

No, that is the description of DOUBT. You defined “heresy” for me, and I defined “obstinate” for you. I read your definition. Did you read mine?

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.

Ummmmmm, yeahhhhhh. If you decide to become (formally) a Catholic, you are not automatically considered a Catholic at that instant. But you’re pretty darned close. The Church teaches that even the unbaptized who die before formal reception can attain salvation.

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

Of course not. Wait, you cited that question?

Jesus connected the dots, not me.

He didn’t connect them for me. And I don’t think the Magisterium did, either.

 

[Brendan_64]

A person remains a Catholic, even if he commits mortal sin, until (and unless) he is excommunicated, or formerly renounces his Faith.

A Catholic who has been excommunicated is still a Catholic. They are denied sacraments, but they are still Catholic. Excommunication is designed to be a corrective punishment adminstered to make an errant Catholic consider and correct his behaviour.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Look, I’ve admitted that I was (probably) a poor RCIA director. But if one of my catechumins asked me, “I want to believe everything the Church teaches, but I’m having trouble with (this or that). Can I still be received?” I hope I would have told him “yes.” I’m pretty sure that’s what my priest would have told him.

What would you have told him?

Just want to say that book knowledge is one thing but teaching your faith is quite another.
I like how all these posts throw out CCC comments and doctrine and dogma and bulls and all that other stuff. I’d like to see them explain it to someone who knows nothing about it in a way that makes sense to that person trying to become a catholic.

If ANYONE has doubts regarding a doctrine a priest would tell them to pray about it and try to understand it. One may never understand it or fully accept it - it will not be the loss of his salvation. So you’re right there, of course. But book knowledge people like to be so precise; they’d exclude you and me from the church probably.

Aren’t you glad Jesus had very few dogmas??!!

A Catholic who has unwilling doubt does not formally renounce his Faith. Excommunication is a judicial act, not a doctrinal act, and is thus defined in Canon Law. Will you please cite for me the Canon that says that a Catholic who is experiencing unwilling doubt is excommunicated?

Correct. If every catholic who has doubt was “excommunicated” the church would be empty! I wonder if steve b even thinks about how many catholics don’t even understand the dogmas of the church. IF they understood them, they might not accept many of them. I have a friend who thought the Immaculate Conception was Jesus being born without sin.

Ummmmmm, yeahhhhhh. If you decide to become (formally) a Catholic, you are not automatically considered a Catholic at that instant. But you’re pretty darned close. The Church teaches that even the unbaptized who die before formal reception can attain salvation.

Wow. A catholic with a heart that believes in grace!

Will get out of the way now.

God bless

 

[steve_b]

FOR STEVE B

Have you just read about your religion or have you also taught it?? Seriously.

It’s one thing to read and the translate what you’ve just read. It’s another thing to catechise a person, which I’ve done for years, and explain things in the proper way but in a way they can understand. They CANNOT understand the CCC, as is evident from these posts, different poeple come up with different answers - also based on presuppositions.

It’s another thing to catechise a person, which I’ve done for years, and explain things in the proper way but in a way they can understand.

I’ve read some of your posts. I was stunned at what you said here. #17 . Recommending lieing? Really? That’s your definition of catechesis?
f:

Now your use of the word “catholic”, you say:

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

Well, the problem here is that David Filmer is using the word catholic correctly and you aren’t. Read his explanation in post no. 30.

They already are catholic; they will be Roman Catholic when they enter the chruch.

#30 David said,

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

Davids confused definition of Roman Catholic comes from his protestant days as an Anglican. He’s wrong.
f:

Your idea that many don’t KNOW the dogma but the church covers them is soooo not logical. By this standard I should have never studied at all so I could know nothing. Please don’t quote to me To Whom Much Is Given Much Will Be Demaded. I don’t really have time for this. Before you say you are a Roman Catholic, you SHOULD know what it means.

Those are your words not mine.

Here’s what I said to David ( #40 )
“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).”
f:

What if I’ve come to believe in the Lord’s salvation, but haven’e been baptized yet - am I lost?

If one comes to believe, then hopefully they will finish the process.
f:

By your definition I’M NOT catholic! (YOUR catholic).

Don’t put this on me. I’m passing on information to you that you obviously don’t know. And I give references properly referenced, so that you know it is not me or my opinions being expressed.
f:

I mean, how do you FORCE me to accept a dogma I have a problem with? You’ll banish me from the church? None of the priests that know me have!

I don’t make the rules. A baptised person who won’t accept a dogma is a heretic

BTW do you know what Latae sententiae means? No one has to tap you on the shoulder, you won’t get a letter in the mail, no facebook comment, no email informing you. It happens on the act of the sin.

canon
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1 nn. 1, 2, and 3.

Excommunication can be reversed by sacramental confession 1463,

 

[eddie_too]

the Church does not make binding dogmas. the Church provides instruction on and preservation of revealed truths about the Divine Revelation that is Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.

The RCC possesses the fullness of the faith. It does not have the authority to stop preaching and teaching the fullness of the faith.

the Marian Doctrines are truths about the Divine Revelation that is complete in the Incarnation.

if the RCC ceased teaching about the Marian Doctrines it would not be carrying out its Divine Commission to preach the Gospel to all nations. that is because the Marian Doctrines are real and true revelations about Jesus’ Gospel.

 

[Brendan_64]

The bottom line is that if the Church teaches it then it is true 100%. If we have difficulty believing anything that the Church teaches, then we must accept that it is we who are wrong and the Church who is right, and with that mindset we must work to conform our beliefs to that of the Church.

Chesterton once said that being Catholic is having the humility to accept that the Church knows better than we do.

 

[steve_b]

the Church does not make binding dogmas.

All dogmas are binding

 

[DavidFilmer]

A Catholic who has been excommunicated is still a Catholic.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. It’s hard to un-become Catholic. I think that even a person who renounces his Faith is still considered Catholic (not in good standing, obviously). They’re still considered bound by part of Canon Law (involving marriage).

 

[frangiuliano115]

I’ve read some of your posts. I was stunned at what you said here. #17 . Recommending lieing? Really? That’s your definition of catechesis?

#30 David said,

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

Davids confused definition of Roman Catholic comes from his protestant days as an Anglican. He’s wrong.

Those are your words not mine.

Here’s what I said to David ( #40 )
“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).”

If one comes to believe, then hopefully they will finish the process.

Don’t put this on me. I’m passing on information to you that you obviously don’t know. And I give references properly referenced, so that you know it is not me or my opinions being expressed.

I don’t make the rules. A baptised person who won’t accept a dogma is a heretic

BTW do you know what Latae sententiae means? No one has to tap you on the shoulder, you won’t get a letter in the mail, no facebook comment, no email informing you. It happens on the act of the sin.

canon
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1 nn. 1, 2, and 3.

Excommunication can be reversed by sacramental confession 1463,

Don’t be so stunned, steve b. I already explained that in one of my posts up above. Do you really think I believe in lieing? And I’d be even so stupid as to say it?

It’s correct to say that we’re all catholic but we’re not all Roman Catholic. Looks like you like to read up on stuff; please learn the difference and then share with us. It is a technicality but it is correct.

Your next paragraph makes no sense so I can’t reply to it. BTW, when you teach catechism you must make sense. And you can’t insult people but you have to be kind and understanding toward them.

You have me kicked out of the church just for saying what is true. What IF you couldn’t understand or believe just ONE doctrine or dogma? What would you do? Latae sententiae yourself??

I thank you for passing on information to me that I don’t know. But could you do the following for me? I said the below in an answer to David FIlmer:

**"If ANYONE has doubts regarding a doctrine a priest would tell them to pray about it and try to understand it. One may never understand it or fully accept it - it will not be the loss of his salvation. "
**

Could you just bring this whole post to the priest of your choice and let him read it and let me know what he says.

God bless you
p.s. I think he’ll have read all the doctrines, dogmas, canons, bulls, the CCC and the bible.

 

[steve_b]

Don’t be so stunned, steve b. I already explained that in one of my posts up above. Do you really think I believe in lieing? And I’d be even so stupid as to say it?

I only went by what you said.
f:

It’s correct to say that we’re all catholic but we’re not all Roman Catholic.

So nobody has to keep guessing what you mean, Tell me exactly who you are. Be specific.
f:

Looks like you like to read up on stuff;

I personally think it’s more important to give qualified evidence for what we believe, all properly referenced, and I like to keep personal opinions to a minimum…
f:

please learn the difference and then share with us. It is a technicality but it is correct.

First give me your definition of what you think the difference is.
f:

Your next paragraph makes no sense so I can’t reply to it.

Since you don’t identify the paragraph, I don’t know what paragraph you’re talking about
#89
f:

BTW, when you teach catechism you must make sense. And you can’t insult people but you have to be kind and understanding toward them.

What didn’t make sense to you? Be specific
Where did I insult anyone? Be specific
Where was I not kind and understanding? Be specific
f:

You have me kicked out of the church just for saying what is true. What IF you couldn’t understand or believe just ONE doctrine or dogma? What would you do? Latae sententiae yourself??

I’m only going by what you said. That is what you believe. So based on what you said, I quoted Church documents that pertain to what you said. That’s not giving you my opinion. I don’t make the rules. If you are not being clear on what you believe, because of language issues, then say so. That can explain much
f:

I thank you for passing on information to me that I don’t know. But could you do the following for me? I said the below in an answer to David FIlmer:

**"If ANYONE has doubts regarding a doctrine a priest would tell them to pray about it and try to understand it. One may never understand it or fully accept it - it will not be the loss of his salvation. "
**

Could you just bring this whole post to the priest of your choice and let him read it and let me know what he says.

What is lacking here is your specifics.

What doctrine do you doubt?
What doctrine will you never fully understand or fully accept?

please be specific on both

 

[frangiuliano115]

I only went by what you said.

So nobody has to keep guessing what you mean, Tell me exactly who you are. Be specific.

I personally think it’s more important to give qualified evidence for what we believe, all properly referenced, and I like to keep personal opinions to a minimum…

First give me your definition of what you think the difference is.

Since you don’t identify the paragraph, I don’t know what paragraph you’re talking about
#89

What didn’t make sense to you? Be specific
Where did I insult anyone? Be specific
Where was I not kind and understanding? Be specific

I’m only going by what you said. That is what you believe. So based on what you said, I quoted Church documents that pertain to what you said. That’s not giving you my opinion. I don’t make the rules. If you are not being clear on what you believe, because of language issues, then say so. That can explain much

What is lacking here is your specifics.

What doctrine do you doubt?
What doctrine will you never fully understand or fully accept?

please be specific on both

Dear Steve b

You want me to do all the work.

Not only is that not fair, but I don’t have the time.

God knows who I am and that’s all that counts. If I’ve taught catechism, what do YOU think I am??

It’s nice that you give evidence. However, we’re not milk drinking christians here. I think 90% of us would know if something incorrect is being stated and would question you on that. Quoting the CCC and other documents is not always necessary.

You’re going to have to find out the difference yourself. You like to read.

I didn’t identify a paragraph. WOW. I didn’t identify wihich dogmaI I’m having a problem with. Did I specifically say I do?? What difference would it make if you’re correct??

Let me tell you two things, if I may be so bold:

1. The priest you bring the post to will not be needing a specific reference to be able to give you an answer.
2. You MUST get out of the LAW and come into GRACE.

It would make life a heck of a lot easier for you and those around you to whom you speak about christianity.

I think Jesus was mad at the pharisees.

God bless you