Do Non-Catholics go to Heaven?

[Sir_Knight]

I find this very interesting posted on this website:
"No Salvation Outside the Church

By Fr. Ray Ryland

Why does the Catholic Church teach that there is “no salvation outside the Church”? Doesn’t this contradict Scripture? God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). Peter proclaimed to the Sanhedrin, “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Since God intends (plans, wills) that every human being should go to heaven, doesn’t the Church’s teaching greatly restrict the scope of God’s redemption? Does the Church mean—as Protestants and (I suspect) many Catholics believe—that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved?

That is what a priest in Boston, Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., began teaching in the 1940s. His bishop and the Vatican tried to convince him that his interpretation of the Church’s teaching was wrong. He so persisted in his error that he was finally excommunicated, but by God’s mercy, he was reconciled to the Church before he died in 1978."
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

This is why I wrote earlier:

In 1972 Fr. Feeney was supposedly “reconciled” to the Church. If Fr. Feeney truly needed to be reconciled, he would have had to recant his position. Yet, he was never asked to do that. Anyone who is truly excommunicated for heresy must withdraw what they once held and proclaim belief in orthodoxy. But Fr. Feeney was never asked to take back or repent from his teaching on “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.”

Actually, Fr. Feeney was asked to profess one of the three Creeds of the Church. So he said the Athanasian Creed. This venerable creed begins and ends with these solemn words:*
*Whoever wishes to be saved needs above all else to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.
…

This is the Catholic Faith; unless everyone believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Therefore, Fr. Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for teaching that outside the Catholic Church and without submission to the Roman Pontiff no one can be saved. He couldn’t be, because the Church herself has dogmatically defined this.

 

[sharmin]

The answer is simple and is taken straight from the word of God. In Romans 10:9-11 it reads:

"If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

and in John 5:24

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and Believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgement, but has passed from death into life.”

Amen!

 

[ddarko]

“full access” to the Church means NOT ignoring the teaching that are part of the Church’s history as I have not done but something which you did.

You betcha and when several Popes have declared something to be true, that remains true today just as much so as it did back then.

Just as human and fallible as you.

And, let’s not forget that he did not have to change his position in order to come back. If he was wrong and he was excommunicated for being wrong, why would he be allowed back if he continued to hold on to that “wrong” position?

Yes, I completely agree. I suggest that you read church history and what other Popes have said on this matter including the numerous Ex-Cathedra Dogma quotes that I have provided for you.

Well actually you have rejected part of the Catholic teaching.

The thing to realize is that the church’s teaching infallibility is not limited to history. Everything that is taught today and to the future is infallible.

So when the church tells you today that this is how it was always interpreted (and you have to admit, all the early church fathers disagree with your position that everyone must be members of the Catholic church), that is an infallible teaching.

The church has told that it can be reconciled and explains how to do so. All the quotes you presented can actually be reconciled when interpreted under the light of these teachings. Whether you personally can see that or not is irrelevant. There are many who lack philosophy and theological knowledge to understand the doctrine of the Trinity. It does not mean its not true or that they can disbelieve it. So same here with this doctrine. Just because you cannot understand how the history and present are reconciled, does not give you the right to disbelieve present Church teaching.

So what you have done, is reject the present church teaching for what you claim is the historical interpretation. That is unfortunately unacceptable position for a Roman Catholic.

God Bless

 

[Sirach2]

I have seen some lengthly rosters of quotes intending to influence the reader that these quotes summarize the fullness of the Church’s teaching. However, they stop short of the Vatican II Council’s teaching and cherry-pick isolated statements taken out of the context in which they were written. Anne Scott rightly cited from Lumen Gentium. In seeking loopholes to discredit this document and the Council’s teaching therein, I’ve seen extensive false propaganda and various types of sophistries flouted from the private interpretations of the writer without any basis in truth whatsoever. It many ways, this comes straight from the pit, using the mind of the person to spead error.

Lumen Gentium is clearly stated as a “Dogmatic Constitution” with the customary affirmation, “And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.”

The Vatican Council had over 2600 Bishops and another addition of theologians and other experts, adding up to 3000. It consisted of

• 1089 bishops from Europe
• 489 bishops from South America
• 404 bishops from North America
• 374 bishops from Asia
• 296 bishops from Africa
• 84 bishops from Central America
• 75 bishops from Oceania, which included Papua New Guinea, The Solomon Islands, New Zealand and Australia
• 63 observers from other Christian Churches
• 52 lay men and women over the whole four years.

Furthermore, when this College of Bishops in union with the Pope constitutes a DOGMATIC writing, (look up the word in Webster) it is truly infallible. Two Thousand Six Hundred Bishops empowered by the Holy Spirit in a lawfully convened Ecumenical Council are not teaching error.

Pope Benedict solemnly stated recently: “…some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church.”

If anyone doubts this, there are 499 footnotes to Lumen Gentium consisting of 304 general notes, and the rest are specific to the various chapters, the highest number of 75 cited for Chapter 3, which deals with the hierarchical structure of the Church. The references include statements from former Councils, Church Fathers, Saints, and they do indeed embrace the entire doctrinal teaching of the Church.

When anyone so proudly impugns this document to project their own opinion, I will believe them when they have examined all 499 references in detail and can say with certainty they understand the Mind of the Church’s 2600 Council participants.

 

[ddarko]

In 1972 Fr. Feeney was supposedly “reconciled” to the Church. If Fr. Feeney truly needed to be reconciled, he would have had to recant his position. Yet, he was never asked to do that. Anyone who is truly excommunicated for heresy must withdraw what they once held and proclaim belief in orthodoxy. But Fr. Feeney was never asked to take back or repent from his teaching on “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.”

Actually, Fr. Feeney was asked to profess one of the three Creeds of the Church. So he said the Athanasian Creed. This venerable creed begins and ends with these solemn words:*
*Whoever wishes to be saved needs above all else to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.
…

This is the Catholic Faith; unless everyone believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Therefore, Fr. Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for teaching that outside the Catholic Church and without submission to the Roman Pontiff no one can be saved. He couldn’t be, because the Church herself has dogmatically defined this.

Actually I can very much help you here. You are missing history about Fr.Feeney case here.

Please read the following.

ewtn.com/library/scriptur/feeney.txt

It will help you better understand what the past popes were saying too because the article goes in to discussion of these matters.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

The answer is simple and is taken straight from the word of God. In Romans 10:9-11 it reads:

"If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

and in John 5:24

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and Believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgement, but has passed from death into life.”

Amen!

+1. Unfortunately, some people who call themselves followers of Christ, reject His OWN words – " … Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned … ". – Mark 16:16.

Instead, they hide behind “this is what He said but that is not what He meant”; which, is pretty lame. The message couldn’t be clearer and baptism REQUIRES both spirit AND water: “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit." – John 3:5.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Actually I can very much help you here. You are missing history about Fr.Feeney case here.

Please read the following.

ewtn.com/library/scriptur/feeney.txt

It will help you better understand what the past popes were saying too because the article goes in to discussion of these matters.

God Bless

Sorry, but this part …
When Feeney was old, some church authorities out of sorrow for him, let him be reconciled to the Church.
… just doesn’t fly. Anyone who is truly excommunicated for heresy MUST withdraw what they once held and proclaim belief in orthodoxy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I find this very interesting posted on this website:
"No Salvation Outside the Church

By Fr. Ray Ryland

Why does the Catholic Church teach that there is “no salvation outside the Church”? Doesn’t this contradict Scripture? God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). Peter proclaimed to the Sanhedrin, “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Since God intends (plans, wills) that every human being should go to heaven, doesn’t the Church’s teaching greatly restrict the scope of God’s redemption? Does the Church mean—as Protestants and (I suspect) many Catholics believe—that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved?

That is what a priest in Boston, Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., began teaching in the 1940s. His bishop and the Vatican tried to convince him that his interpretation of the Church’s teaching was wrong. He so persisted in his error that he was finally excommunicated, but by God’s mercy, he was reconciled to the Church before he died in 1978."
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

This is why I wrote earlier:

There is no contradiction and No Salvation is infallible not because the early church fathers stated it, or because many Popes used it in there encyclicals but because it is Scripture. The Popes and Saints used it to further define a period of time they were in. No different than how Catholic Doctrine evolves in further definition today such as V-II.

Whats not understood is the Catholic Church “is” the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ who resides in all the Tabernacles worldwide. When Christ spoke to St Peter in Matthew the ministry of Chirst was established through Divine Providence. The Keys to the Kingdom and the authority to bind and lose were given to these select, not anyone who decides to start a christian church. Christ stated the church would “prevail”. And when He further stated “Pick up your Cross and follow me” These should have been a clear indication this wouldn’t be a cakewalk. Compounded by after 2000 years we are now considered to be in the book of Revelation. Thus theres a very real effort to get mankind back on track to communion with God, which by large man has refused since Adam and Eve.

Well the question that begs to be asked is How does one come to the Way, Truth and Life? Through those Christ charged with the Authority these are ministers…His Apostles which carried on through Apostolic Succession through their teaching to others such as St Irenaeus or Ignatius of Antioch. Thus the chain of succession continues with the Bishops and Patriarchs in the early church and till today. I’m sorry I’m not familiar with the father you mention above.I should say its not uncommon to see this every now and then.

The CC clearly teachs there is ONE PATH to Jesus Christ and that is the CC. And in early Christianity this also included the Orthodox Church which is obviously a very real part of One Holy Apostolic Church. Be it they are in schism today.

All Christians are called to the Catholic Church through communion, while there are truths in all the Churchs which uphold the 7th ecumenical council, they are organisms living outside the body which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. While there is much truth in all of them, there is also truth lacking. We see thsi in various areas of Catholic teaching which many can’t comprehend or are just not at this point of belief as of yet.

This is pretty cool …

Originally Posted by jnewaz
Ah okay, so we are in agreement. Good.

The Catholic Church is the definitive road to heaven. But other roads merge onto this road, through the course of human life, and via the compass of our god given conscience.

This is a very good way to view other areas of Christianity.

Peace

 

[rinnie]

+1. Unfortunately, some people who call themselves followers of Christ, reject His OWN words – " … Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned … ". – Mark 16:16.

Instead, they hide behind “this is what He said but that is not what He meant”; which, is pretty lame. The message couldn’t be clearer and baptism REQUIRES both spirit AND water: “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit." – John 3:5.

Also you either believe that the Church is the Body of Christ or you reject this teaching. Col 1:24.

It is through the Church that we become one with him.

God made the plan, as we can see in Col 1:24 St Paul teaches the authority given to him as he carries out the divine plan the mystery to make Christ know to the gentiles. He did this through the Church.

To reject that Salvation is through Jesus Christ which as St Paul teaches us is through his Church.

Christ himself tells us he is united to his Church, his church and he are one. You cannot separate Christ from his Church.

Although people try to do so. It cannot be done. Christ said he was sending the Advocate the Holy Spirit to guide the Church until the end of age.

If God separated from his Church then that will make Christ a liar. Christ said he would not make us orphans, that he would be with us until the end of age.

Salvation comes from Jesus Christ and him and his Church are one. The Church is led by the power of the Holy Spirit and that is why we are saved. By the power of the Holy Spirit that is led by the Church.

 

[ddarko]

Sorry, but this part …
When Feeney was old, some church authorities out of sorrow for him, let him be reconciled to the Church.
… just doesn’t fly. Anyone who is truly excommunicated for heresy MUST withdraw what they once held and proclaim belief in orthodoxy.

Um… I think that part is really irrelevant. The church doesn’t have to be infallible with respect to who they let in to the church After all, right now you are promoting the same position Fr. Feeney promoted. Technically, you are looking at excommunication from the Catholic Church

So what is important is whether you read the rest of the document and understood why you are wrong or at least why you must give FULL ASSENT to the Church.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Well actually you have rejected part of the Catholic teaching.

The thing to realize is that the church’s teaching infallibility is not limited to history. Everything that is taught today and to the future is infallible.

So when the church tells you today that this is how it was always interpreted (and you have to admit, all the early church fathers disagree with your position that everyone must be members of the Catholic church), that is an infallible teaching.

You have a talent for making false generalizations to support your incorrect conclusions. I have quoted, and provided supporting references for, several infallible declarations that one MUST be a member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved

The church has told that it can be reconciled and explains how to do so. All the quotes you presented can actually be reconciled when interpreted under the light of these teachings.

Why don’t you start. Please reconcile the seven infallible dogmas that I quoted HERE and explain how your position can be correct.

Whether you personally can see that or not is irrelevant.

Actually, it is very relevant because if I can’t see it AND you can’t explain it, then you are WRONG.

There are many who lack philosophy and theological knowledge to understand the doctrine of the Trinity. It does not mean its not true or that they can disbelieve it. So same here with this doctrine. Just because you cannot understand how the history and present are reconciled, does not give you the right to disbelieve present Church teaching.

You are overlooking one thing – the teaching of salvation outside of the Church has yet to be elevate to doctrine status. And as far as having a “philosophy and theological knowledge”, I refer you to John Salza, an Author and Catholic Apologist featured many times on EWTN and has had many books published with Church approval; and this is what he has to say on the matter (this is a word for word quote) …

I hope we cover the Church’s infallible doctrine "extra ecclesiam nulla salus” by demonstrating that the Catholic Church is the one, true and only Church founded by our Savior.

Regarding your comments on “no salvation outside the Church,” it is not accurate to say that “informal membership in the Catholic Church are just as expedient to salvation as formal membership in Her.” That is not true. If it were, then one religion would just be as good as another. This is a heresy called indifferentism which the Church has repeatedly condemned.

Objectively speaking, there is no possible way of salvation outside Christ and His Church. Those who will be saved will be saved by Christ through the Catholic Church. It is true that, non-Catholic Christians, by virtue of their baptism, are imperfectly united to the Church. But this does not mean that salvation is equally expedient for them. To the contrary, it is because they do not have the fullness of the sacramental life of the Church, which brings about the very salvation at issue. If you study what the Church has said on this, you will see the nearly 2,000-year tradition on this teaching.

So what you have done, is reject the present church teaching for what you claim is the historical interpretation. That is unfortunately unacceptable position for a Roman Catholic.

Half a century ago, the Church taught the concept of Limbo. Now, the Church has shied away from that teaching. Unless something is declared to be an infallible teaching of the Church, a Catholic can reject that teaching and still remain in good standing with the Church. What a Catholic can not do is reject official Church Doctrines and Dogmas – which is what YOU have done (unless you can explain how your position can remain correct in light of the seven infallible doctrines that I quoted HERE).

 

[ddarko]

You have a talent for making false generalizations to support your incorrect conclusions. I have quoted, and provided supporting references for, several infallible declarations that one MUST be a member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved

Thanks, I am happy you think I am talented in some way

The problem I am pointing out here is that you are contradicting the very things you are quoting. The Catholic Church has stated today that its interpretation is NOT as you are interpreting it.

Therefore, for you to continue to promote it, excommunicates you from the Church. But that means you are no longer Catholic and falls in to the group of people condemned as Heretics/Schismatics in the very quotes you presented. Thus you will loose salvation.

All I am saying is, be a good Catholic. Accept what the Church teaches today and its interpretation of the past teaching. Otherwise you do risk your salvation since you will be OUTSIDE the Church.

Why don’t you start. Please reconcile the seven infallible dogmas that I quoted HERE and explain how your position can be correct.

I don’t think you understand what I am saying.

It is possible that I am unable to reconcile. But that does not matter is my point. As a Catholic you give full assent to things taught by the church that you understand and DON’T UNDERSTAND. So not being able to reconcile is not grounds for you to disagree with the Church.

Actually, it is very relevant because if I can’t see it AND you can’t explain it, then you are WRONG.

Um… that does not logically follow. If you can’t see it and I can’t explain it, it could just mean we are both morons.

Who are we morons to question the Church guided by the Holy Spirit?

You are overlooking one thing – the teaching of salvation outside of the Church has yet to be elevate to doctrine status. And as far as having a “philosophy and theological knowledge”, I refer you to John Salza, an Author and Catholic Apologist featured many times on EWTN and has had many books published with Church approval; and this is what he has to say on the matter (this is a word for word quote) …

I hope we cover the Church’s infallible doctrine "extra ecclesiam nulla salus” by demonstrating that the Catholic Church is the one, true and only Church founded by our Savior.

Regarding your comments on “no salvation outside the Church,” it is not accurate to say that “informal membership in the Catholic Church are just as expedient to salvation as formal membership in Her.” That is not true. If it were, then one religion would just be as good as another. This is a heresy called indifferentism which the Church has repeatedly condemned.

Objectively speaking, there is no possible way of salvation outside Christ and His Church. Those who will be saved will be saved by Christ through the Catholic Church. It is true that, non-Catholic Christians, by virtue of their baptism, are imperfectly united to the Church. But this does not mean that salvation is equally expedient for them. To the contrary, it is because they do not have the fullness of the sacramental life of the Church, which brings about the very salvation at issue. If you study what the Church has said on this, you will see the nearly 2,000-year tradition on this teaching.

Half a century ago, the Church taught the concept of Limbo. Now, the Church has shied away from that teaching. Unless something is declared to be an infallible teaching of the Church, a Catholic can reject that teaching and still remain in good standing with the Church. What a Catholic can not do is reject official Church Doctrines and Dogmas – which is what YOU have done (unless you can explain how your position can remain correct in light of the seven infallible doctrines that I quoted HERE).

Actually the teaching is infallible. It has been taught throughout history by the early Church Fathers and reaffirmed by the Popes. Thus, it qualifies as infallible. Hence why people get excommunicated when they deny it. So I think you need to fear for your salvation here because you are trying pretty hard to qualify in to the Schismatic/Heretic category.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Um… I think that part is really irrelevant. The church doesn’t have to be infallible with respect to who they let in to the church

It is VERY relevant. The Church just can’t ignore Canon Law.

After all, right now you are promoting the same position Fr. Feeney promoted. Technically, you are looking at excommunication from the Catholic Church

One can not be excommunicated for believe the teachings of the Church. What does the Athanasian Creed (one of the three offical creeds of the Church) say?
Whoever wishes to be saved needs above all else to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. Unless one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
You are the one who is rejecting an OFFICIAL Church creed. You are saying that one does not need to hold Catholic beliefs in order to be saved while the Athanasian Creed is saying the exact OPPOSITE – “one must believe faithfully and firmly”. Technically, by failing to accept an official Church Creed, you are looking at excommunication from the Catholic Church

 

[ddarko]

It is VERY relevant. The Church just can’t ignore Canon Law.

One can not be excommunicated for believe the teachings of the Church. What does the Athanasian Creed (one of the three offical creeds of the Church) say?
Whoever wishes to be saved needs above all else to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. Unless one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
You are the one who is rejecting an OFFICIAL Church creed. You are saying that one does not need to hold Catholic beliefs in order to be saved while the Athanasian Creed is saying the exact OPPOSITE – “one must believe faithfully and firmly”. Technically, by failing to accept an official Church Creed, you are looking at excommunication from the Catholic Church

That is your interpretation of what the Athaneaian Creed says. Not the Church’s.

Look, this is simply what a protestant does. He points to Scripture and says, “hey thats not what it says here in my interpretation. So I disagree with the Church”.

So I really don’t get what you are trying to do here. My only fear is that you are risking your own salvation by trying hard to get OUT of the Catholic Church by promoting a heretical interpretation of the words of Popes.

God Bless

 

[GaryTaylor]

What is actual point of contention? You guys are losing me now.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Thanks, I am happy you think I am talented in some way

The problem I am pointing out here is that you are contradicting the very things you are quoting.

Not in the least.

The Catholic Church has stated today that its interpretation is NOT as you are interpreting it.

The problem is that teaching has not been elevated to doctrine status and therefore is not binding on the faithful just like their position on Limbo.

Therefore, for you to continue to promote it, excommunicates you from the Church. But that means you are no longer Catholic and falls in to the group of people condemned as Heretics/Schismatics in the very quotes you presented. Thus you will loose salvation.

Actually, that is what you done by rejecting the several quotes that I’ve supplied to you along with the Athanasian Creed.

All I am saying is, be a good Catholic. Accept what the Church teaches today and its interpretation of the past teaching. Otherwise you do risk your salvation since you will be OUTSIDE the Church.

If I died in 1950 and rejected the Chruch’s teaching on Limbo and believed in the position that the Church teaches today, would I have been outside of the Church and at risk for losing my salvation? No! Same here. We are to accept the INFALLIBLE teachings of the Church.

I don’t think you understand what I am saying.

It is possible that I am unable to reconcile. But that does not matter is my point. As a Catholic you give full assent to things taught by the church that you understand and DON’T UNDERSTAND. So not being able to reconcile is not grounds for you to disagree with the Church.

The only things that we are to blindly follow are those that have been infallibly declared.

Um… that does not logically follow. If you can’t see it and I can’t explain it, it could just mean we are both morons.

Who are we morons to question the Church guided by the Holy Spirit?

If I tell you that your cell phone works because invisible little men grab the words and carry it to the other cell phone but go on to say that I can’t prove it, should you believe me? I would hope not. If I show you a contradiction, you either need to explain the contradiction. Or, if you can’t, accept that one exists.

Actually the teaching is infallible. It has been taught throughout history by the early Church Fathers and reaffirmed by the Popes. Thus, it qualifies as infallible.

Show me where? I’ve already provided you with several references which prove otherwise.

Hence why people get excommunicated when they deny it. So I think you need to fear for your salvation here because you are trying pretty hard to qualify in to the Schismatic/Heretic category.

Actually, that is what YOU have done by rejecting the Athanasian Creed and the infallible declarations of several Popes.

 

[Sir_Knight]

That is your interpretation of what the Athaneaian Creed says. Not the Church’s.

It’s not an “interpretation” – it’s what it actually says …
Whoever wishes to be saved needs above all else to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. Unless one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
… there is no other possible meaning.

Look, this is simply what a protestant does. He points to Scripture and says, “hey thats not what it says here in my interpretation. So I disagree with the Church”.

I’m not pointing to scripture. I’m pointing to what the Church says. How can I be disagreeing with the Church if I am REPEATING her teachings?

So I really don’t get what you are trying to do here. My only fear is that you are risking your own salvation by trying hard to get OUT of the Catholic Church by promoting a heretical interpretation of the words of Popes.

So I really don’t get what you are trying to do here. My only fear is that you are risking your own salvation by trying hard to get OUT of the Catholic Church by rejecting infallible declarations of past Popes.

 

[Sir_Knight]

What is actual point of contention? You guys are losing me now.

This is not the first time that we’ve butted heads and I am sure that it will not be the last.

 

[ddarko]

Not in the least.

The problem is that teaching has not been elevated to doctrine status and therefore is not binding on the faithful just like their position on Limbo.

Actually, that is what you done by rejecting the several quotes that I’ve supplied to you along with the Athanasian Creed.

If I died in 1950 and rejected the Chruch’s teaching on Limbo and believed in the position that the Church teaches today, would I have been outside of the Church and at risk for losing my salvation? No! Same here. We are to accept the INFALLIBLE teachings of the Church.

The only things that we are to blindly follow are those that have been infallibly declared.

If I tell you that your cell phone works because invisible little men grab the words and carry it to the other cell phone but go on to say that I can’t prove it, should you believe me? I would hope not. If I show you a contradiction, you either need to explain the contradiction. Or, if you can’t, accept that one exists.

Show me where? I’ve already provided you with several references which prove otherwise.

Actually, that is what YOU have done by rejecting the Athanasian Creed and the infallible declarations of several Popes.

Sigh, I can only choose to argue with Catholics who actually know what they are talking about. You on the other hand are more interested in PROVING YOURSELF than actually believing in the Church. Good luck with that!

God Bless

 

[Sirach2]

1. • The [Athanasian] creed originally was most likely written in Latin, while Athanasius composed in Greek.
   • Neither Athanasius nor his contemporaries ever mention the Creed.
   • It is not mentioned in any records of the [ecumenical councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_councils).
   • It appears to address theological concerns that developed after Athanasius died (including the filioque).
   • It was most widely circulated among Western Christians
   Sir Knight, this creed in which you put all of your marbles was not a dogma, nor was it ever mentioned in any of the ecumenical councils, including the 499 references cited in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium. Athanasius was not even a pope invested with Magisterial Authority. Yet you reject all other Catholic solemn teachings to put your credence in this??? Oh my, I would have to agree that you are risking your salvation, and you are NOT in communion with Rome.
   
   Bump…
   
   I have seen some lengthly rosters of quotes intending to influence the reader that these quotes summarize the fullness of the Church’s teaching. However, they stop short of the Vatican II Council’s teaching and cherry-pick isolated statements taken out of the context in which they were written.
   
   Anne Scott rightly cited from Lumen Gentium. In seeking loopholes to discredit this document and the Council’s teaching therein, I’ve seen extensive false propaganda and various types of sophistries flouted from the private interpretations of the writer without any basis in truth whatsoever. It many ways, this comes straight from the pit, using the mind of the person to spread error.
   
   Lumen Gentium is clearly stated as a “Dogmatic Constitution” with the customary affirmation, “And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.”
   
   The Vatican Council had over 2600 Bishops and another addition of theologians and other experts, adding up to 3000. It consisted of …
   • 1089 bishops from Europe
   • 489 bishops from South America
   • 404 bishops from North America
   • 374 bishops from Asia
   • 296 bishops from Africa
   • 84 bishops from Central America
   • 75 bishops from Oceania, which included Papua New Guinea, The Solomon Islands, New Zealand and Australia
   • 63 observers from other Christian Churches
   • 52 lay men and women over the whole four years.
   Furthermore, when this College of Bishops in union with the Pope constitutes a DOGMATIC writing, (look up the word in Webster) it is truly infallible. Two Thousand Six Hundred Bishops empowered by the Holy Spirit in a lawfully convened Ecumenical Council are not teaching error.
   
   Pope Benedict solemnly stated recently: “…some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church.”
   
   If anyone doubts this, there are 499 footnotes to Lumen Gentium consisting of 304 general notes, and the rest are specific to the various chapters, the highest number of 75 cited for Chapter 3, which deals with the hierarchical structure of the Church. The references include statements from former Councils, Church Fathers, Saints, and they do indeed embrace the entire doctrinal teaching of the Church.
   
   When anyone so proudly impugns this document to project their own opinion, I will believe them when they have examined all 499 references in detail and can say with certainty they understand the Mind of the Church’s 2600 Council participants.