Do you agree with everything in the Magisterium?

[alphonsus1]

Out of the posts you referenced above. My second one I clarified that I was intending to say it is “the” logical reason to be Catholic OVER Eastern Orthodox. That is to say, what Catholics can say that Eastern Orthodox cannot. I also think it’s a necessary piece in why any particular religion is the fullness of Truth.

But I agree, I didn’t clarify well in my first post you referenced. It could be taken the way you say, that I don’t think there’s any other reason to be Catholic but the Pope. I did not mean to say that. I apologize for that.

 

[chessnerd321]

Cultivating doubt, and deliberately consenting to being skeptical, is not what the Church calls us to be.

And I didn’t say that it did. I said that doubt is a step along answering any question in life, which it is.

Anyway, I’m getting the feeling like other posters that you made this topic to grandstand rather than have a discussion. I hope you find what you’re looking for, but I’m out.

 

[alphonsus1]

I think we often agree more than we disagree. I still would rather have you say “being inquesitive and pursuing Truth is a step to answering questions” not “doubt.” I don’t like using “doubt,” in that sentence, because cultivating voluntary doubt is precisely what we aren’t suppose to do.

But I (and other posters) have the problem of focusing in on where we think we disagree, before focusing on where we agree. And that is what is causing this.

No, not “grandstanding.” I will work on not doing that. Sorry, I apologize!

 

[Dovekin]

Why should you be Catholic and not Orthodox? Because the Council of Florence declares that “schismatics” cannot be saved unless they are joined with the Catholic Church (And yes, the Orthodox are schismatics because Cannon Law 751 defines refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff as schism).

So you reject the teaching in my earlier quote from Dominus Iesus:

the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy…

When I read that, I conclude that the Orthodox can be saved because they are joined with the Catholic Church “present and operative” in them despite being schismatics for not accepting the Primacy. You seem to come to a different conclusion?

The distinction I made was an important one. It was taught by the CDF, part of the non-infallible magisterium of the Pope, but worthy of consideration especially since it was an explanation of the language used by the last Council.
——
My point is that people encounter Christ through their family, community, ritual, and join the Church because of that rather than because of papal teaching. They accept papal teaching, but only because of Christ whom they encountered in those ways. That looks like the opposite of what you have been saying, but I apparently do not understand your use of emphatic language.

 

[alphonsus1]

I think we are disagreeing because I took “reason” to mean “logical reason.” Not the reason if people who identified as Catholic were given an opinion poll, that they would subjectively say they were Catholic.

We had a misunderstanding because I thought you meant that the Pope’s authority to teach on Faith and Morals was not an important logical reason to be Catholic, but just an important logical reason for which “denomination” is true.

But obviously, if you truly believed that the Catholic Church was the only path to salvation, because it was the One True Church intended by God, because he gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and the authority to teach on Faith and morals. Then that is entirely a “logical reason” to be Catholic (among other reasons that you gave). Do we agree?

Finally, the Church developed what it means to be “Outside of the Church” so non-Catholics can be saved by invincible ignorance (I think we had another misunderstanding here).

I just brought out that quote from the Council of Florence to show that the Catholic Church is the only way to salvation, which is tied inextricably to the Pope’s authority to teach on Faith and Morals, which is at least a “logical reason” to be Catholic (among others).

I did not intend to say that Christ is not present in the Orthodox Church, I intended to say that there are MULTIPLE reasons to Catholic (And Papal supremacy is definitely a key logical reason that cannot be omitted!)

Did we clear everything up now? I apologize for this appearing like a “debate.” I think we mostly agree We don’t need to go back and forth any more, let’s focus on where we agree!

 

[Pug]

Maybe the/my problem is when thinking of Catholics, I tend to assume they would mostly have involuntary doubts, which granted I ought not assume. (The thread is addressing Catholics, it seems to me). I can see someone being invited by God to belief and rejecting it voluntarily out of hand readily enough. I see doubts as something I fundamentally do not want, and I wish would go away, so in an egotistic way I see others as being the same way.

To record for your survey, the one that has most dogged me is about faith itself. It is not about morals or doctrines like Purgatory or whatnot. I long since accepted I had to just live with it. It took a while to figure out how to ignore something so central, though.

Yes, we mostly agree.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

1. No one can answer that they agree with everything in the non infallible magesterium because I highly doubt anyone around here knows it all and has read it all.
2. Everyone agrees with the non infallible magesterium until they dont.

 

[ATraveller]

But what is a Cafeteria Catholic? Do they disagree with issues of Faith (the Trinity, the resurrection)?

Denying the Resurrection would mean they’re not even Christian let alone Catholic. Denying any part of the Nicene Creed, which is the bare minimum, renders one a non-Christian.

Oh, as to your original question, no I don’t agree with everything the Catholic Magisterium has ruled on. But that’s because I’m a Protestant.

 

[Dovekin]

The Catholic Church is the only path to salvation, because it is the One True Church intended by God, because Christ is present with her. God gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and the authority to teach on Faith and morals to help us. Those things are secondary in importance.

If you agree with that, then we agree. I cannot tell because I do not see the distinction between reason and logical reason that you are trying to make.

Why should you be Catholic and not Orthodox? Because the Council of Florence declares that “schismatics” cannot be saved unless they are joined with the Catholic Church. (And yes, the Orthodox are schismatics because Cannon Law 751 defines refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff as schism).

Another example. This is a totally misleading statement as I read it. I cannot imagine why you wrote it in response to what I quoted from Dominus Iesus. How many people will read it and say “The Orthodox can be saved because they are joined with the Catholic Church,” as the Church teaches? I think most will think ‘the Orthodox cannot be saved because they are schismatics.”

I do not know what you meant when you wrote that, so I have no idea if we agree. I am not trying to argue anout this, just trying to understand how you apply your acceptance of Church doctrine.

 

[alphonsus1]

No, that is erroneous and contradictory. If the Catholic Church were the One True Church just because Christ was Operative in our Church, and not also because of the teaching authority of the Pope, then given the Orthodox also have “Christ present and operative in these Churches,” they would also be part of the One True Church.

However, the Orthodox Church is in Schism. From the Council of Florence, only the Catholic Church can lead to Heaven. Therefore, since salvation is only possible through the Catholic Church (not the Orthodox Church), this must necessarily imply that the Catholic Church has something that the Orthodox Church does not. This is the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the teaching authority of the Pope. The only path to salvation is through the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church is not a pathway to salvation. The opposite of salvation, not salvation, equals hell. That is, the Orthodox Church is a pathway to, in the words of the Council of Florence, the “everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.”

No, it’s not “secondary,” it is an “essential and integral part of God’s plan.” It is the very reason that the Orthodox Church is in schism. Stop downplaying schism, refusal of submission to the Roman Pontif, and pretending as if it’s only “secondary.” If it were not that important, why does it lead to hell? Why did St. Thomas think that even the lesser sin of heresy (compared to schism), deserved the death penalty?

Finally, that is an absolutely astonishing statement! I am merely using the exact same word choice of the Council of Florence, verbatim. Are you accusing the Council of Florence of being misleading? It’s infallibile, our Church would never mislead people. I’ll repost it, so people can see you are making repeated false accusations. There is nothing misleading, I am using the exact language of the Council.

“[The holy Roman church] firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are JOINED to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; and that nobody can be saved, … unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church (Session 11 — Feb. 4, 1442).”

 

[Dovekin]

Ok. I thought we disagreed.

there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.
Dominus Iesus 17

I am not in any way questioning Florence. But I am questioning the way you understand it. It does not seem to fit with this statement from the CDF a few years ago. And it does not fit with my sense of what the Church teaches about Orthodox dioceses being “true particular Churches.”

That is why I am much more comfortable with responses to your original question that acknowledge some humility about understanding. I strive for the truth, and papal teaching can help guide me to that. But I am not going to allow my deficient understanding of the Council of Florence to interfere with my faith in Christ and in his Church.

 

[alphonsus1]

Church teachings must be interpreted in harmony. The “true particular church” must mean that they have valid apostolic succession and valid Eurachists. The Orthodox Church has many Truths, just like many other religions do as well, to varying degrees or another. And yes, the Church developed what it means to be “outside” of the Church, so non-Catholics, even atheists, can be saved by invincible ignorance. This means, IF a non-Catholic makes it to Heaven, it is only through the Catholic Church (even if they do not realize it in this life). So they will find out that we are all Catholics once we get to Heaven. And our One True Universal Church is the only way and the narrow way to salvation.

At the same time, by the Council of Florence, schematics, those who refuse submission to the Roman pontiff, are not on a pathway to salvation. “Not a pathway to salvation = pathway to hell.” Therefore, like I said before, given that the Orthodox Church is in schism, their Church is not part of the narrow path to Heaven, but the broad road to perdition. And this is because solely refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff will cause this (even with a valid Eucharist).

Therefore, interpret both in harmony! Both are True at the same time. And yes, the Pope’s authority to teach on Faith and Morals is an essential part, not secondary, to the path to salvation.