Do you see yourself as a Catholic first, or a Christian first?

[TrueLight]

|t cannot, since their ignorance is not invincible. Invincible means “never to be overcome in any possible way”. Clearly, this is not true for them. They are ignorant, which lessens culpability somewhat, but not invincibly so. That applies to people who’ve never had any contact at all with Christianity and never will. Not to a protestant who may or may not bother to do the required research into Catholicism. I’m not saying it is easy, but what you described is not invincible. If it were invincible, you wouldn’t have a story to tell, since there could be no discovery, no research, none of that. That’s what invincible means.

I don’t care what anyone says. Wikipedia is awesome!

Notice the part I bolded:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Allocution Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: "For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3.2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is “one God, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.

“But, just as the way of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ; and let us be devoted to the common salvation of men in proportion to our strength, ‘for the hand of the Lord is not shortened’ (Isa. 9.1) and the gifts of heavenly grace will not be wanting to those who sincerely wish and ask to be refreshed by this light.”

Now one can certainly say, “Well you can say this about all sorts of religions then”, and that would be an understandable conclusion. I can’t argue against that rebuttal.

Only God knows.

However, I personally do not equate non-Christian religions which have other prophets and Gods and strange ideas about the divinity of Jesus, with Protestant Christian beliefs.

 

[Big_Feet]

I am both a Christian and a Catholic – these terms, when realized in their fullness are truly one in the same, and actually can be interchangeable.

Being “Catholic” indicates that I participate in the fullness of the Christian faith, as God has revealed. This is as opposed to other ecclesiastical Christian communities, who only participate in particular portions of this revelation, but believe in the basic, fundamental core of believe in the Trinity, thereby also known as Christians.

 

[NewsTheMan]

a pastoral council can make dogmatic statements, after all, Lumen Gentium is called a Dogmatic Constitution, as is Verbum Dei.

It’s called Dogmatic Constitution but it by itself as not dogmatic since it never claimed to be. Furthermore, VII was never claimed to be a council that taught anything new, nor did it intend to teach with the infallibility charism. Vatican II only repeats prior doctrine, it does not say anything new. It never claimed to (Paul VI opened VII stating it wasn’t going to) and anything in it’s documents that contradict previous teaching is to be left at the door.

Irrespective, the statements made by the CCC are unambiguous, that we should receive seperated brethren with respect and affection as brothers in the Lord.

They may be unambiguous to you because you want them to be straightforward. But they are ambiguous. The CCC, furthermore, by itself is not infallible and it is incomplete it many areas. It still requires assent for those teachings which it expresses that are infallibly defined and for those matters that are necessary for salvation, but for certain other things there can be dispute due to the ambiguity of what is written.

Protestants in the proper sense are not “brothers” in the Lord because that would make us all equal. We are not. The Catholic Church is not a brother Church to a protestant community. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ - a protestant Church is not.

Here is what (then) Cardinal Ratzinger said on the CCC

"This brings us to the question already mentioned before, regarding the authority of the Catechism. In order to find the answer, let us first consider a bit more closely its juridical character. We could express it in this way: analogously to the new Code of Canon Law, the Catechism is de facto a collegial work; canonically, it falls under the special jurisdiction of the Pope, inasmuch as it was authorized for the whole Christian world by the Holy Father in virtue of the supreme teaching authority invested in him. . . .

This does not mean that the catechism is a sort of super-dogma, as its opponents would like to insinuate in order to cast suspicion on its as a danger to the liberty of theology. What significance the Catechism really holds for the common exercise of teaching in the Church may be learned by reading the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, with which the Pope promulgated it on October 11, 1992–exactly thirty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council: “I acknowledge it [the Catechism] as a valid and legitimate tool in the service of ecclesiastical communion, as a sure norm for instruction in the faith.”

The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church [pp. 25-27].

Thus the Catechism presents the teaching of the Church without elevating the doctrinal status of those teachings beyond what they otherwise have. Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions (esp. in the area of social teaching), there remains due liberty for theologians (and others) when they encounter something that has been proposed only tentatively."

So, as you can see, the CCC needs to be read in light of tradition. Now, as for what you earlier quoted from the CCC, yes, of course, I believe that to be true. It is true. However, it is ambiguous only because - as you are witnessing now - it is open to interpretation that is either right or wrong. I believe you are reading too much into it, and it may be that I am reading too little into it.

This is a difficult area and perhaps it’s best to just sit back and say that I don’t have the authority or the education to be speaking as I do. If I have said anything that is not the teaching of the Church of Christ, let it be anathema. I have been explaining things as I see it, and I suspect you have been too. Perhaps it is best to get back to the original topic at hand rather than - for me anyway - to overstep my bounds.

I’d like to add lastly that I’ve never said that we shouldn’t treat protestants with respect. I acknowledge that many are more holy than I am personally. We should evangelize them with love, care and respect. My tone in this thread doesn’t reflect that as much since I am in the company of Catholics, perhaps that isn’t a good thing though. Either way, I’ve enjoyed the back and forth and I am grateful to be a member of the Church that God established.

 

[bearer]

To be Catholic and to be Christian is the same thing.

On the other hand, to be a Protestant is to be a Christian without the fullness of Christ.

 

[eo_chibears]

Recently I was talking to someone who I thought was a pretty staunch Catholic and he made the comment that he saw himself as a Christian first, moreso than a Catholic.

More recently when I have done or said something stupid a work colleague has lightheartedly said something like " I thought you were a Christian, you shouldn’t be saying things like that". On other occasions some others have commented about “the Christian thing to do…” etc

Now, that has got me thinking. How do we see ourselves foremost, a Catholic, or a Christian? Does it matter?

The first Christians were Catholic. So obviously Catholics are Christians.

 

[TrueLight]

so, you’re a I dont like VII? coz this section is completely unambiguous

If I may, when speaking to a traditionalist, you can probably make a more effective case by quoting older documents and catechisms, because newer documents should align with, and not refute tradition.

To be Catholic and to be Christian is the same thing.

On the other hand, to be a Protestant is to be a Christian without the fullness of Christ.

Yes, indeed.

 

[TrueLight]

It’s called Dogmatic Constitution but it by itself as not dogmatic since it never claimed to be. Furthermore, VII was never claimed to be a council that taught anything new, nor did it intend to teach with the infallibility charism. Vatican II only repeats prior doctrine, it does not say anything new. It never claimed to (Paul VI opened VII stating it wasn’t going to) and anything in it’s documents that contradict previous teaching is to be left at the door.

They may be unambiguous to you because you want them to be straightforward. But they are ambiguous. The CCC, furthermore, by itself is not infallible and it is incomplete it many areas. It still requires assent for those teachings which it expresses that are infallibly defined and for those matters that are necessary for salvation, but for certain other things there can be dispute due to the ambiguity of what is written.

Protestants in the proper sense are not “brothers” in the Lord because that would make us all equal. We are not. The Catholic Church is not a brother Church to a protestant community. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ - a protestant Church is not.

Here is what (then) Cardinal Ratzinger said on the CCC

Good quote.

 

[christosdavid]

It’s called Dogmatic Constitution but it by itself as not dogmatic since it never claimed to be. Furthermore, VII was never claimed to be a council that taught anything new, nor did it intend to teach with the infallibility charism. Vatican II only repeats prior doctrine, it does not say anything new. It never claimed to (Paul VI opened VII stating it wasn’t going to) and anything in it’s documents that contradict previous teaching is to be left at the door.

They may be unambiguous to you because you want them to be straightforward. But they are ambiguous. The CCC, furthermore, by itself is not infallible and it is incomplete it many areas. It still requires assent for those teachings which it expresses that are infallibly defined and for those matters that are necessary for salvation, but for certain other things there can be dispute due to the ambiguity of what is written.

Protestants in the proper sense are not “brothers” in the Lord because that would make us all equal. We are not. The Catholic Church is not a brother Church to a protestant community. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ - a protestant Church is not.

Here is what (then) Cardinal Ratzinger said on the CCC

And yet, the Popes and Catholic church have called them brothers since John XXIII, through Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul the Great under whom the CCC was promulgated and with Ratzinger heading the CDF, now Benedict XVI.

What was the pastoral intention of Vatican II? I’m pretty sure part of it was ecumenical, after all, there were Protestant observers for a reason. Paul VI visited Athenagoras for a reason.

Moreover, Vatican II is not the first unity council. The 14th at the Lateran was composed to bring unity with the Greeks. It also used doctrine, the primacy of Peter etc…

The CCC at the very minimum allows you to know the mind of the church on the subject. At the very least, that of John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI…

 

[christosdavid]

If I may, when speaking to a traditionalist, you can probably make a more effective case by quoting older documents and catechisms, because newer documents should align with, and not refute tradition.

Yes, indeed.

sure, Augustine didnt deny the Donatist had received a true baptism and were Christians although seperated.

 

[Little_Mary]

Please note, this is not a question of the definition of a Catholic or a Christian, or whether a Catholic is a Christian. Given that many Christians have a hatred of the Catholic Church my question is how do you choose to describe yourself, Catholic or Christian, in light of this anti-Catholic sentiment amongst many Christians. Cheers.

Catholic. It covers all the bases.

 

[NewsTheMan]

And yet, the Popes and Catholic church have called them brothers since John XXIII, through Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul the Great under whom the CCC was promulgated and with Ratzinger heading the CDF, now Benedict XVI

See, this is the ambiguity. Calling them “brothers in Christ” is ecumenical language and in my mind is wishy-washy when talking doctrinally. In everyday talk, yes I affirm they are brothers in Christ because they were made by God and have the same duty towards God that I do, and they love God and are Christian. But the phrasing “brother in Christ” in something like the CCC doesn’t sit well with me (though, of course, it may be myself who needs the change and not the CCC). Individual protestants personally can be considered a brother in Christ but not because they are protestant, but because they are Christian by virtue of their baptism and have at least some truth of the Christian faith. Protestant communities however are not “brothers” to the Catholic Church, they are distant cousins three times removed who decided not to be a part of the family any more.

 

[christosdavid]

See, this is the ambiguity. Calling them “brothers in Christ” is ecumenical language and in my mind is wishy-washy when talking doctrinally. In everyday talk, yes I affirm they are brothers in Christ because they were made by God and have the same duty towards God that I do, and they love God and are Christian. But the phrasing “brother in Christ” in something like the CCC doesn’t sit well with me (though, of course, it may be myself who needs the change and not the CCC).** Individual protestants personally can be considered a brother in Christ but not because they are protestant, but because they are Christian by virtue of their baptism and have at least some truth of the Christian faith.** Protestant communities however are not “brothers” to the Catholic Church, they are distant cousins three times removed who decided not to be a part of the family any more.

I like where you’re going with that, the Protestant churches, being varied, must have deficiancies in them, yet the perfect work of Christ in someones life, washing them from sin and tending them on the vine is the work of God.

Which is ultimately why I prefer the term Christian, not because Protestants have equality on a church level but because Christians can be found within them.

It should be unnessesary to add, that not all baptised Catholics will be in heaven, because the terms Catholic and Christian are not actually identical.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t know what the Catholic Church says about Orthodox canonizations. However, if they are in Heaven, they are in Heaven and they are Catholics. Any errors they held as Orthodox they would have repented of at their judgement. Same story for those who are in Heaven and on earth were Protestant, same story for those who are in Heaven and on earth were Hindu. There are no Protestants, Orthodox, Hindu, Atheists etc in Heaven. Only Catholics.

Pope John Paul II definitely called St. Seraphim of Sarov a saint. Thats a start

|t cannot, since their ignorance is not invincible. Invincible means “never to be overcome in any possible way”. Clearly, this is not true for them. They are ignorant, which lessens culpability somewhat, but not invincibly so. That applies to people who’ve never had any contact at all with Christianity and never will. Not to a protestant who may or may not bother to do the required research into Catholicism. I’m not saying it is easy, but what you described is not invincible. If it were invincible, you wouldn’t have a story to tell, since there could be no discovery, no research, none of that. That’s what invincible means.

The problem here is you are judging who gets to heaven or not. We are not the judges, only Christ is. Don’t trouble yourself trying to understand why and how.

 

[A_Catholic]

The problem here is you are judging who gets to heaven or not. We are not the judges, only Christ is. Don’t trouble yourself trying to understand why and how.

No, NewstheMan did not judge whether any individual is going to heaven or not. He is looking at what the faiths believe, and he said they are not in communion with the Catholic Church. No one here is judging any individuals. We are saying there is only one true Church and all the others started out as heresies. That is saying nothing about the individual members of the Church. I think you owe NewstheMan an apology.

 

[markomalley]

I am not saying that individual Protestants are heretics. I am saying that their religious beliefs are herticial. To be a heretic, one must know the truth and then reject it. That is certainly what the founders of the Protestant religion did, and thus their beliefs are heretical. Certainly, to reject the Eucharist, the Pope, etc. is heretical.

We certainly need to be in prayer for them. But I think it is wrong to say that just because they believe in Jesus Christ, we are in spiritual union with them. We are not.

True, communion with them is hampered…but reviewing the Magesterium on the subject (from Pius IX’s Quanto Conficiamur Moerore onward) gives us the correct position to take…

 

[A_Catholic]

Invincible ignorance can most certainly be applied to them. How long did it take me to discover the true teachings of the Catholic Church through the internet? A long time, even though I spend a lot of time on the internet.

I think you need to look up how the Church defines “invincible ignorance”:

Ignorance is invincible if a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence. Reasonable diligence, in turn, is that diligence that a conscientious person would display in seeking the correct answer to a question given (a) the gravity of the question and (b) his particular resources.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1203

You go on to say this:

If they were raised Protestant and actually believe their faith, they will have no incentive to research the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church etc, if they were taught those are false teachings. The incentive to investigate might come as a result of wanting to better evangelize.

 

[christosdavid]

I think you need to look up how the Church defines “invincible ignorance”:

 

[TrueLight]

I would be a little more careful in talking about how God works and doesn’t work, and we should never presume to know.

I would take my own advice if I were you.

I know how God worked in my life, and neither you or anyone else can say otherwise.

If you read Augustine’s confessions, he was able to see and speak of how God shaped him and molded him to bring him to where he is. This is why there is a Holy Spirit and discernment.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, NewstheMan did not judge whether any individual is going to heaven or not. He is looking at what the faiths believe, and he said they are not in communion with the Catholic Church. No one here is judging any individuals. We are saying there is only one true Church and all the others started out as heresies. That is saying nothing about the individual members of the Church. I think you owe NewstheMan an apology.

He is fussing about invisible ignorance. Who are we to judge anyway if one person is honestly and sincerely ignorant of the truths.

 

[A_Catholic]

dont worry, its not a heresy to be inconsistent

Good catch. But my point was that we can never know God’s minds when it comes to how he is working with us or anyone else individually. But there isn’t a lot of guess work involved into why God calls people into the Church. It’s all about where we are going to spend our eternity. That is the only that that really matters.