Catholicism And Doctrinal Changes

[ricko]

Regarding the way of salvation, Jesus said, “I am the way”

The RCC says, "We are the way."

No man can serve two masters.

You made the quote above (in bold) stating that the Catholic Church in some document or other says “We are the way”. I do not believe there is such a saying in any Catholic documents. I and the other Catholics on this forum do not take kindly to false quotes, misinformation or anything other than the truth. If you did find such a quote as truly being in existence then please supply the source.

 

[nasb]

Instead, why not give credit where it is due:

Without the work of the Holy Spirit, no one would know about Christ.
Without the work of the Holy Spirit, there would be no Bible.
Without the work of the Holy Spirit, there is no salvation."

Without giving God alone the glory, there would only be idol worship (the glorification of things or people).

AMEN!!!

The only way to be saved is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone!

SOLI DEO GLORIA!

And I’m Roman Catholic!

 

[Tomster]

There are indeed instances in which doctrine develops over time, but the CC has actually changed some of its teachings in such a way as to contradict what it had taught earlier. The CC position on “no salvation outside of the [RC] Church” is just one example of this. To justify itself, Rome tries to say that Protestants are Catholics too! Protestants are “separated bretheran” but not really outside of the Roman Church!

All you have to do, Nick, is read Lumen Gentium, paragraph #8 to get an idea of how far the Vatican institution has come in this regard. Lumen Gentium is one of the official documents of the Second Vatican Council. If you can decipher the ambiguity of that document, please fill me in. And I’m Roman Catholic!

Tomster

 

[Della]

The idea that people who aren’t Catholic can be saved by invincible ignorance has been around for a LOT longer than people think. Some people try to say that this idea developed with Vatican II, but in fact, it’s been around since before the Council of Trent. The Catholic Church had two major issues that it had to deal with that had never existed as issues up to that time. First, the number of Protestant denominations was expanding. Some decision had to be made regarding the interpretation of this rule to them. BUT… the issue was alive even before the Reformation, because of the discovery of the New World in 1492. The Catholic Church had a theological decision to make. How was it that God had created two entire continents of people that did not know Christianity, nor could they have before that point? Were all of the native Americans that lived before Columbus doomed to hell simply because the had been born in isolation? It was at this point that the Catholic Church had to modify it’s doctrine, and that invincible ignorance came about. It was a natural development that expanded the understanding of the doctrine. It did not change the doctrine itself.

It was before even 1492. Peter said in Acts 10:34-35:

[34] And Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality,
[35] but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

Paul stated in Romans 2:1-11:

[1] Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.
[2] We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things.
[3] Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?
[4] Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
[5] But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
[6] For he will render to every man according to his works:
[7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
[8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
[9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,
[10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
[11] For God shows no partiality.

This and other such passages are the witness the Church had for declaring that those who never knew Christ could be saved.

 

[FCEGM]

. . .
I’m no expert on your faith so bare with me here but I understand the Church of a century or two ago had a very narrow understanding of this and believed that me or anyone else formally outside of your Church would be doomed.

Now, it is also my understanding that a pope (don’t know who or when) came along and said something to the effect that those who are “invincibly ignorant” could be saved. I also believe your latest church documents refer to non-Catholic Christians as “serperated bretheren”. . .

Just so we are clear, I am not attacking or bashing but only asking.

Understood. A priest of my acquaintance wrote something on the topic that may help:

This issue illustrates how typical it is of the non-theological mind (both Catholic and non-Catholic) to immediately conclude there’s a contradiction and reversal when presented with an apparent contradiction. That’s because a one-level (flat) kind of logic is applied to a Divine Mystery that has many depths.

This sort of apparent contradiction can easily be brought up concerning Scripture itself in many examples (“The Father is greater than I, e.g,). The non-theologian also sees it in ecclesiastical pronouncements and different Fathers, and here in this example of the necessity of the Church for salvation. The difference, of course, is a development in understanding how the Church is necessary for salvation.

Note that the later text keeps an essential element of the earlier teaching, namely, that membership in the visible Church is necessary for salvation, because the Church is a necessary instrument by God’s choice in salvation (this is true also for Mary and with similar causality involved in salvation). It is the either/or one-level thinking that sees an absolute contradiction where there is rather a relative conclusion drawn from an obvious truth which is erroneous from one pov, but not from every pov.

The way a theologian handles each statement is to seek the truth in each and then relate the truths. He does not just discard the first statement simply as wrong. Furthermore, he carefully considers the actual context of the earlier statement as he does with the later one.

So, in the papal (and/or patristic) statements of earlier centuries, what was the context and the truth of those statements? What, if not that the visible Church is necessary for salvation? And this is still true today and will not change.

The difference between the papal statements of earlier ages and our time is in applying this revealed Truth on the necessity of the Church for salvation regarding those not in the visible Church.

If we now go to John Paul II’s teaching we see that he still maintains that the visible Church is necessary for salvation, but that since it is obviously not the fault of many millions that they have not adequately been evangelized they can not be blamed for culpable ignorance (but inculpable ignorance) and that since God gives sufficient grace to be saved to all, all have the chance to be saved through sufficient grace which is mysteriously in Christ, therefore in the Church in some way.

This makes it still necessary for the Church to evangelize.

None of this is new, in fact the late Holy Father wrote in the encyclical Ut Unum Sint what the theologians have figured out for decades, and before that would remain moot and leave it to God Who is all merciful and just.

 

[Nick_Jones]

And besides, the doctiine has not changed. “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” remains true. All those who are saved, whether they are Protestants, Jews, Muslims, atheists, or pagans (or anything I may have missed), are saved through the Catholic Church. We don’t know how; it’s a mystery. But that is the way it is.

What about the criminal (one of two) who was crucified along with Jesus and who, by trusting in Jesus, went to heaven? Was he saved through the RCC?

 

[Nick_Jones]

The idea that people who aren’t Catholic can be saved by invincible ignorance has been around for a LOT longer than people think. Some people try to say that this idea developed with Vatican II, but in fact, it’s been around since before the Council of Trent.

What does it mean to be “saved by invincible ignorance”? Are you suggesting that ignorance is some sort of virtue?

 

[Nick_Jones]

BUT… the issue was alive even before the Reformation, because of the discovery of the New World in 1492. The Catholic Church had a theological decision to make. How was it that God had created two entire continents of people that did not know Christianity, nor could they have before that point? Were all of the native Americans that lived before Columbus doomed to hell simply because the had been born in isolation? It was at this point that the Catholic Church had to modify it’s doctrine, and that invincible ignorance came about. It was a natural development that expanded the understanding of the doctrine. It did not change the doctrine itself.

In that case, this little bit of history would have been a non-issue if the CC had a correct understanding of theology:

It isn’t religion that saves and it isn’t the wrong religion or even a lack of religion that condemns. It isn’t “the Christian religion” that has saved my soul; it is the grace of God which manifests itself by my God-given trust in Jesus (and in Him alone) that has saved me from my sins.

 

[Veritas41]

It is my understanding that your church teaches that dogma can’t actually change but can be modified. I don’t fully understand this.

The case I am thinking of is the “outside the church there is no salvation” teaching which I believe is considered to be dogmatic by your church.

Now, it is also my understanding that a pope (don’t know who or when) came along and said something to the effect that those who are “invincibly ignorant” could be saved. I also believe your latest church documents refer to non-Catholic Christians as “serperated bretheren”.
.

As for the teaching of no salvation outside of the Church, if you go back to the ECF’s they even taught the possibility of salvation for non-Christians:

Justin Martyr
We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the *Logos *of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, *logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid (*First Apology *46 [A.D. 151]).

Origen
There was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the Wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248

Augustine
When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body. . . . All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark (ibid., 5:28[39]).

I have a book written by James Cardinal Gibbons in 1876, *Faith of Our Fathers, *and in the book he refers to Protestants as *separated brethren. *Even in the 19th century the Catholic Church didn’t consider Protestants to be automatically hell-bound because they weren’t Catholic.

One thing to keep in mind is earlier pronouncements on this teaching were made at a time when Europe was completely Catholic and everyone was aware of the Church, etc. So to knowingly separate oneself from the Church would be mortal sin. Knowledge of truth makes us accountable, and the more we know the more accountable we are. When the Protestant revolt first occurred, all the original Protestants were originally Catholic, so they would have been in the category of heretics under condemnation because they knew the truth but rejected it. However, generations of Protestants have grown up, knowing only Protestant teaching and so they aren’t accountable the way the original Protestants were. Invincible ignorance simply means being ignorant through no fault of one’s own – innocently ignorant. Not ignorant through rejection or spiritual sloth. Catholic teaching (based in Scripture, 1 Tim 2:4, Romans 2 and Acts 17) is that God desires the salvation of all men and therefore makes that salvation *possible *through giving *sufficient *grace for all men to be saved (but not all are necessarily saved). Truth is available to all men through the witness of creation and the natural (moral) law written in the human heart, and those who are ignorant of the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ through no fault of their own *can *be saved *if *they respond to the truth they *can *know, responding to the grace that is available to them. And it’s also important to understand that even those who aren’t Roman Catholic are still considered to be joined to the Church through baptism --though not in full communion. Likewise non-Christians are joined in a way that God hasn’t revealed, through grace, to the Church, but once again, that union isn’t perfect, but it’s enough for salvation. That’s why when I became Catholic, I wasn’t told I was now saved --because I had already been baptized and professed Christ – I was told I was now in full communion with the Church. There are degrees of union. Bad Catholics are not in full communion with the Church when they commit mortal sin and don’t repent or knowingly dissent from Church teaching. They’re in a worse situation than someone who knows less but is faithful to the truth he knows. I think what appears to be a change in Church teaching is more a change in emphasis – from God’s judgment to God’s mercy. We don’t presume God’s mercy, but we certainly hope and trust in it.

 

[JaneFrances]

What about the criminal (one of two) who was crucified along with Jesus and who, by trusting in Jesus, went to heaven? Was he saved through the RCC?

Once again, I think you have approached this subject without a clear understanding of the doctrine.

Yes, the criminal is saved through the Church. Just as our biblical forefathers would have been saved through the Church. Just as our Blessed Mother was saved through the Church.

What is the Church? It is those who are called out by God according to grace. Is it not? The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ saves us and he chooses to make himself known to us through his Church.

Lumen Gentum (which you really should read if you truly want a complete understanding of this doctrine) clarifies very well how one can be a part of the Church, the Body of Christ, without even knowing it. Which I would imagine particularly pertains to the criminal on the cross.

So, as for the criminal. . .First, I think your understanding of his participation in the Body is incomplete. He didn’t JUST “trust in Jesus and go to heaven,” as you suggest. Certainly his situation was quite unique among many of those we encounter in Scripture. However, to reduce his journey into a single moment is not consistent with the Scriptural accounts which always represent faithful obedience to God as indication of grace and redemption. From Scripture we know that this man exhibited his participation in the Body in a number of ways. There is much fruit there to be seen. I would just point you back to the gospel of St. Luke.

The thief could have just hanged there believing in his heart that Jesus was Lord, accepting Him as his personal Lord and Savior. But he didn’t. He confessed his belief. He rebuked a sinner. He hoped in God’s mercy to forgive his own sinfulness. He asked for Jesus’ grace. Maybe he didn’t do everything he could have. Maybe his work wasn’t perfect. Maybe even his faith wasn’t perfect. But in our weakness, Christ’s power is made perfect (2 Cor. 12:9).

The example of the thief is such an amazing testament to how Jesus works in us and how we are expected to respond as members of his Body. Everything is GRACE. There is no salvation outside of grace. There is no salvation outside of Christ. The Church is the Body of Christ.

 

[JaneFrances]

What does it mean to be “saved by invincible ignorance”? Are you suggesting that ignorance is some sort of virtue?

PLEASE, do yourself a favor and do some quick research on the term “invincible igorance.”

Hopefully, your comment above is a product of it!

 

[Orionthehunter]

In that case, this little bit of history would have been a non-issue if the CC had a correct understanding of theology:

It isn’t religion that saves and it isn’t the wrong religion or even a lack of religion that condemns. It isn’t “the Christian religion” that has saved my soul; it is the grace of God which manifests itself by my God-given trust in Jesus (and in Him alone) that has saved me from my sins.

The Church believes exactly what I bolded. It isn’t that the Church has an incorrect understanding of theology but you have an incorrect understanding of what the Church teaches about herself. I suggest that you read both Lumen Gentum as well as Part One, Article 9 in the Catechism to be better informed what the Church actually teaches. Much of your comments belie an incomplete understanding.

 

[FCEGM]

Once again, I think you have approached this subject without a clear understanding of the doctrine.

Yes, the criminal is saved through the Church. Just as our biblical forefathers would have been saved through the Church. Just as our Blessed Mother was saved through the Church.

What is the Church? It is those who are called out by God according to grace. Is it not? The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ saves us and he chooses to make himself known to us through his Church… . . [etc.].

You’ve explained this so well, Jane. Thank you.

Christ is the only cause of our salvation, and through His Church, which is the extension of His Incarnation, He has saved and continues to save all those who are joined to Him in and through His Body.

The following article might help Nick come to some understanding of the true nature of the Church:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a45.htm

 

[Nick_Jones]

You’ve explained this so well, Jane. Thank you.

Christ is the only cause of our salvation, and through His Church, which is the extension of His Incarnation, He has saved and continues to save all those who are joined to Him in and through His Body.

The following article might help Nick come to some understanding of the true nature of the Church:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a45.htm

I’m going to read this, as well as Lumen Gentum. Thanks to all of you, for pointing me in the right direction.

 

[SPH1]

What about the criminal (one of two) who was crucified along with Jesus and who, by trusting in Jesus, went to heaven? Was he saved through the RCC?

As an aside, the thief did not go to Heaven right then. Christ first descended into “Hell”, aka Sheol.

See Romans 10:6-8 (descent into abyss); Ephesians 4:8-10 (ascended, first descended into lower regions); 1 Peter 3:19 (preached to spirits in prison); Hebrews 11:13 (O.T. Saints died in faith, but did not obtain what was promised.)

So the thief being with Christ, he went along for the ride.

Now, see Hebrews 11:39-40:

1. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40. God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. KJV

It seems that in some sense the Church is necessary for salvation, even with regard to the O.T. saints?

 

[Veritas41]

What does it mean to be “saved by invincible ignorance”? Are you suggesting that ignorance is some sort of virtue?

No, ignorance is definitely not a virtue, but it can be a basis for God showing mercy:

“Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was *shown mercy *bcause I acted *in ignorance *and unbelief.” 1 Tim 1:13

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Reformed1, Nick,

Jesus is the one who saves  (God saves).

The church existed from the moment of his conception in the virgin. That is, the body of christ existed in his mother – for it was from her immaculate flesh that he was incarnate. The church, then, existed as a private (unmanifested) entity (a fetus…) before it existed publicly.

In the upper room, before the crucifixion, Jesus took bread – his BODY – and constituting the Apostles priests he broke it and gave it to them. He also breathed the Holy Spirit upon them, and told them they were receiving it. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven.

Again, the upper room was enclosed and private – but it was the formation and growth of the church.

At the crucifixion, then, the flesh taken from Mary was being offered to the father. The body of Christ – the CHURCH – was saving the thief on the cross next to him. It was because Mary said ‘yes’ that Christ had this flesh to offer the father in sacrifice.

There is no salvation outside the church, for the body of Christ came from man. It was God’s pleasure to save us by becoming one of us. Not one person, of the OT, or the NT was saved without the Church.

 

[Reformed1]

Reformed1, Nick,

Jesus is the one who saves  (God saves).

The church existed from the moment of his conception in the virgin. That is, the body of christ existed in his mother – for it was from her immaculate flesh that he was incarnate. The church, then, existed as a private (unmanifested) entity (a fetus…) before it existed publicly.

In the upper room, before the crucifixion, Jesus took bread – his BODY – and constituting the Apostles priests he broke it and gave it to them. He also breathed the Holy Spirit upon them, and told them they were receiving it. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven.

Again, the upper room was enclosed and private – but it was the formation and growth of the church.

At the crucifixion, then, the flesh taken from Mary was being offered to the father. The body of Christ – the CHURCH – was saving the thief on the cross next to him. It was because Mary said ‘yes’ that Christ had this flesh to offer the father in sacrifice.

There is no salvation outside the church, for the body of Christ came from man. It was God’s pleasure to save us by becoming one of us. Not one person, of the OT, or the NT was saved without the Church.

I wasn’t trying to debate the salvation outside the church issue but trying to get a better understanding of what appears to be doctrinal changes in your church.

 

[4given]

Regarding the way of salvation, Jesus said, “I am the way”

The RCC says, “We are the way.”

No man can serve two masters.

Very true. I agree.

 

[4given]

You made the quote above (in bold) stating that the Catholic Church in some document or other says “We are the way”. I do not believe there is such a saying in any Catholic documents. I and the other Catholics on this forum do not take kindly to false quotes, misinformation or anything other than the truth. If you did find such a quote as truly being in existence then please supply the source.

I’m confused. Doesn’t the CC claim that salvation comes through itself because you believe it’s Christ’s church and Christ’s church is what saves? Or He saves through the CC? Also, I can’t understand why Catholics refer to Christ’s church as if it were some separate entity outside of the saved. The saved ARE the church. But, of course, we have differing views as to what the church is so our perspectives are going to be different.