Extra doctrines to be saved?

[defenderoftruth]

What do you say to someone who says, “well I’m not Catholic because I don’t believe I have to believe in the ever virginity of Mary, the assumption, the Queen of Heaven, or infallibility of the Pope to be saved.” (an Anglican)

Basically it’s the Nicene Creed and nothing more for them.

 

[babs57]

The last item, the infallibility of the pope, is what it’s really all about. If you can’t believe that the pope is infallible, what you are really saying is that the CHURCH isn’t infallible. (The pope never speaks infallibly outside of the Church). That means that the CHURCH isn’t really guarded by the Holy Spirit, which means that Jesus didn’t grant the Church with that particular gift that is recorded in John 16:13. You see, if the Church has no authority to interpret scripture, or proclaim doctrine, then you never really have to believe anything but whatever *you *decide is right, from the bible or wherever. You can be your own pope!! Who would care if the CHURCH says that Mary was immaculately concieved, or that you need to confess your sins, or even that Jesus is God. (This actually had to be proclaimed by Church doctrine, believe it or not.)

 

[Mount_Carmel]

defenderoftruth - Well, the canonical gospels of Matthew and Luke describe Mary as a virgin (Greek παρθένος, parthénos). It also seems a reasonable and logical requirement that if Mary was to be the Ark of the New Covenant, the carrier vessel of that which is not only human but also divine, that she must be unsullied in any way in mind or carnal act - that she must be special and pure, and indeed virginal. It also seems a logical requirement that in suitable memory of this special and ‘elevated’ status of pure and virginal mother, that this should ever remain the status quo and preserved in ‘specialness’.

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility is hedged around with the conditions required for full ‘ex cathedra’, and is based upon the words of Jesus - 'And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18

To your ‘someone’ I would say they are probably ‘Christian’, but not a full part of the [Roman] Catholic Communion.

 

[po18guy]

It is not “extra” doctrines, but God’s revealed truth. Does this person love God enough to desire all truth, or only that portion which they are comfortable with?

 

[DavidFilmer]

What do you say to someone who says, “well I’m not Catholic because I don’t believe I have to believe in the ever virginity of Mary, the assumption, the Queen of Heaven, or infallibility of the Pope to be saved.” (an Anglican)

Basically it’s the Nicene Creed and nothing more for them.

No Catholic has to believe any of that. Not even the Nicene Creed. Anglicans require actual belief (I speak as a former Anglican). No Catholic is required to believe anything.

(Why do I get the feeling I have said this recently? Maybe I will save time by quoting myself.)

There are no beliefs that must be held to be a Catholic. Catholics may question or doubt any (or all) Church teaching and remain in good standing. This may come as quite a surprise to many people who think Catholics are required to believe all sorts of things. In truth, we are not required to believe anything.

But we don’t get to just thumb our noses at God while we wallow in our disbelief. There are some rules. The person must realize that his doubts or lack of belief is a personal fault that should be corrected. He must make a genuine, good-faith (and ongoing, if necessary) effort to correct that fault (CAF is good for that, as is the Catechism). He must not knowingly teach others anything contrary to the Faith.

As a traditional Anglican, I was received into the Faith while still unconvinced about the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. I have since reconciled myself with Church teaching in both regards.

 

[defenderoftruth]

No Catholic has to believe any of that. Not even the Nicene Creed. Anglicans require actual belief (I speak as a former Anglican). No Catholic is required to believe anything.

(Why do I get the feeling I have said this recently? Maybe I will save time by quoting myself.)

There are no beliefs that must be held to be a Catholic. Catholics may question or doubt any (or all) Church teaching and remain in good standing. This may come as quite a surprise to many people who think Catholics are required to believe all sorts of things. In truth, we are not required to believe anything.

But we don’t get to just thumb our noses at God while we wallow in our disbelief. There are some rules. The person must realize that his doubts or lack of belief is a personal fault that should be corrected. He must make a genuine, good-faith (and ongoing, if necessary) effort to correct that fault (CAF is good for that, as is the Catechism). He must not knowingly teach others anything contrary to the Faith.

As a traditional Anglican, I was received into the Faith while still unconvinced about the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. I have since reconciled myself with Church teaching in both regards.

Hmm…thanks David.

 

[Dizet]

DOCTRINE- A solemn proclamation of the Church regarding Faith and morals in which the Faithful are obliged to believe in.

 

[DavidFilmer]

DOCTRINE- A solemn proclamation of the Church regarding Faith and morals in which the Faithful are obliged to believe in.

The obligation is of the heart, but not of the mind. We cannot force ourselves to believe anything of the mind, so we cannot be culpable of sin if we don’t do so.

The obligation of the heart has already been assumed by the realization that our doubt is a personal fault. The heart realizes this, while the mind has not yet caught up.

 

[JosephKLM12]

The obligation is of the heart, but not of the mind. We cannot force ourselves to believe anything of the mind, so we cannot be culpable of sin if we don’t do so.

The obligation of the heart has already been assumed by the realization that our doubt is a personal fault. The heart realizes this, while the mind has not yet caught up.

I would like to point out that your heart cannot think. Ergo, you must BELIEVE it with your MIND. This type of speaking leads to subversion of the obligation by Catholics to believe in the fullness of truth revealed in Sacred Tradition. If someone says that they do not believe in the immaculate conception of the BVM, then they cannot be called Catholic. Period. It is not a point for discussion at all. A denial and obstinate refusal to believe one dogma of the Church is called HERESY. Once a Catholic learns of a new dogma, then they are required to BELIEVE that specific teaching, regardless of whether or not they like it or it makes sense to them. That is what makes us Catholic and not protestant.

You must **intellectually **submit to the dogma of the Church, even if you are not completely “sold” on a specific teaching. You are required to further your understanding of each dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and BELIEVE in those doctrines.

 

[Abbigaelann]

I usually respond with things like “you don’t have to believe in Christ either, but you do. It’s a matter of your faith, and how much you are willing to put into that faith journey. Do you believe you can enjoy the fullness of the journey without the ability to have that much faith? How big is your love?”

 

[vames]

One cannot be forced to believe in anything and it’s wrong to presume that people who can’t bring themselves to believe a particular teaching are either dumb or stubborn and prideful. To claim that one must intellectually submit to a certain teaching only “because it’s a dogma” and to threaten him with the perspective of losing eternal salvation if he doesn’t obey is the worst kind of totalitarian approach. If the person takes such a threat seriously, he will end up by lying to himself, out of fear. I don’t think this can be the goal of the Church - sad people who try to deceive themselves in order to avoid the mortal sin of thinking with their God-given brains.

 

[steve_b]

What do you say to someone who says, “well I’m not Catholic because I don’t believe I have to believe in the ever virginity of Mary, the assumption, the Queen of Heaven, or infallibility of the Pope to be saved.” (an Anglican)

Basically it’s the Nicene Creed and nothing more for them.

Quick response,

If he/she recites the Creed, when they get to the part in the creed when they recite “I believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church” they really don’t believe THAT, so they really can’t recite the creed either.

One also needs to recite the Creed as it was meant when it was written. One can’t pour their own meaning into words.

 

[steve_b]

No Catholic has to believe any of that. Not even the Nicene Creed. Anglicans require actual belief (I speak as a former Anglican). No Catholic is required to believe anything.

(Why do I get the feeling I have said this recently? Maybe I will save time by quoting myself.)

There are no beliefs that must be held to be a Catholic. Catholics may question or doubt any (or all) Church teaching and remain in good standing. This may come as quite a surprise to many people who think Catholics are required to believe all sorts of things. In truth, we are not required to believe anything.

Here’s a few thoughts

**892 **Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

iow, our assent to everything involving our faith is not a suggestion, it’s required.

Re: the Creed, one can’t / shouldn’t recite the creed for example knowing they

• do not assent to what they are saying
• or are not required to assent in what they are saying,
• or flat out deny what the creed states .

When one states “I believe …”, when they don’t, they begin with a lie.

When that comes to doctrines and dogmas of the Church, one would also be guilty of *Incredulity …which is *the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

 

[Evan]

Quick response,

If he/she recites the Creed, when they get to the part in the creed when they recite “I believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church” they really don’t believe THAT, so they really can’t recite the creed either.

One also needs to recite the Creed as it was meant when it was written. One can’t pour their own meaning into words.

I would like to know what the creed says in Greek.

In Latin it actually says “I believe the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”. The preposition “in” is not present (as I translate it).

CREDO in unum Deum …
Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum …
Et in Spiritum Sanctum …
Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam …

 

[simpleas]

One cannot be forced to believe in anything and it’s wrong to presume that people who can’t bring themselves to believe a particular teaching are either dumb or stubborn and prideful. To claim that one must intellectually submit to a certain teaching only “because it’s a dogma” and to threaten him with the perspective of losing eternal salvation if he doesn’t obey is the worst kind of totalitarian approach. If the person takes such a threat seriously, he will end up by lying to himself, out of fear. I don’t think this can be the goal of the Church - sad people who try to deceive themselves in order to avoid the mortal sin of thinking with their God-given brains.

There is no like button on here so heres a for that!

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

I would like to know what the creed says in Greek.

In Latin it actually says “I believe the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”. The preposition “in” is not present (as I translate it).

CREDO in unum Deum …
Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum …
Et in Spiritum Sanctum …
Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam …

In Latin a lot of words can be left out if they can be assumed to be present. “Credo in unum Deum” and “Credo unum Deum” mean the same thing. “in” may have been omitted at some point to make it flow better with music or similar. “Credo” itself was left out in all clauses subsequent to the first “Credo in unum Deum.”

The original Nicea-Constantinople Creed text is in the plural (we believe) and has “in unam catholicam atque apostolicam Ecclesiam.”

Links
Creed as agreed at Nicaea, 325
Creed as agreed at Constantinople, 381 (this is the one we say at Mass)

 

[Evan]

In Latin a lot of words can be left out if they can be assumed to be present. “Credo in unum Deum” and “Credo unum Deum” mean the same thing. “in” may have been omitted at some point to make it flow better with music or similar. “Credo” itself was left out in all clauses subsequent to the first “Credo in unum Deum.”

The original Nicea-Constantinople Creed text is in the plural (we believe) and has “in unam catholicam atque apostolicam Ecclesiam.”

Links
Creed as agreed at Nicaea, 325
Creed as agreed at Constantinople, 381 (this is the one we say at Mass)

Steve

That is the first time I’ve seen a translation with “in unum …” and I’ve never seen it in Latin without “in” before the other 3 items (Father Son HS). I’m afraid the Greek I learned was in math classes and that is of no use at all in understanding what the Greek says when I see it.

So, Steve, do you read Greek and, if so, are the prepositions there? Or not?

Thanks

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

Steve

That is the first time I’ve seen a translation with “in unum …” and I’ve never seen it in Latin without “in” before the other 3 items (Father Son HS). I’m afraid the Greek I learned was in math classes and that is of no use at all in understanding what the Greek says when I see it.

So, Steve, do you read Greek and, if so, are the prepositions there? Or not?

Thanks

The Latin creed in our missals is a liturgical derivation, just as the Our Father is a liturgical derivation, and not identical to the Vulgate - it’s mostly Matthew but a few modifications from Luke. Doctrinally the original Nicaea-Constantinople Creed would be the definitive version; that said, the absence of “in” makes no difference, and nor do the other differences.

Greek - I can’t read it (the alphabet is fine though), but I can figure some of it out if I try. Latin I did at school and I try to keep it alive. Line numbers below refer to the 381 link I cited in my previous post. I hope the Greek I pasted here carries over after I post.

καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ Κύριον καὶ Ζωοποιόν [8th from the bottom]
Et in Spiritum sanctum, Dominum ac vivificatorem
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver

In that “and in the Holy Spirit” you can see kai = and, eis = in.

εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν· [4th from the bottom]
in unam catholicam atque apostolicam Ecclesiam.
in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.

Here the Greek and Latin lack “and” - the only “kai” (atque or et or ac in Latin) is the “and” between “catholic” and “apostolic.” It does have “eis” so it says “in one holy catholic and apostolic church.” Certainly the “in” can be dropped in Latin while retaining the same meaning; I don’t know about the Greek.

 

[Evan]

The Latin creed in our missals is a liturgical derivation, just as the Our Father is a liturgical derivation, and not identical to the Vulgate - it’s mostly Matthew but a few modifications from Luke. Doctrinally the original Nicaea-Constantinople Creed would be the definitive version; that said, the absence of “in” makes no difference, and nor do the other differences.

Greek - I can’t read it (the alphabet is fine though), but I can figure some of it out if I try. Latin I did at school and I try to keep it alive. Line numbers below refer to the 381 link I cited in my previous post. I hope the Greek I pasted here carries over after I post.

καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ Κύριον καὶ Ζωοποιόν [8th from the bottom]
Et in Spiritum sanctum, Dominum ac vivificatorem
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver

In that “and in the Holy Spirit” you can see kai = and, eis = in.

εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν· [4th from the bottom]
in unam catholicam atque apostolicam Ecclesiam.
in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.

Here the Greek and Latin lack “and” - the only “kai” (atque or et or ac in Latin) is the “and” between “catholic” and “apostolic.” It does have “eis” so it says “in one holy catholic and apostolic church.” Certainly the “in” can be dropped in Latin while retaining the same meaning; I don’t know about the Greek.

Thanks for you explanation, but I would still like to hear the translation from someone familiar with Greek. I too try to keep up my Latin from High School and University, but never studied Greek.

 

[steve_b]

I would like to know what the creed says in Greek.

In Latin it actually says “I believe the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”. The preposition** “in”** is not present (as I translate it).

CREDO in unum Deum …
Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum …
Et in Spiritum Sanctum …
Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam …

How is this an issue?