O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
Sorry, but that is completely untrue. Salvation is also there.
- Status
S
sambos671
Guest
G
grampben
Guest
As usual we have a self serving thread which has no place on this sub-forum.
Do you really think this will change ANYONE’s opinions for the better?
Do you really think this will change ANYONE’s opinions for the better?
L
linuxgeek71
Guest
The Council of Florence states it, as I showed in an above quote. The Council of Florence was an ecumenical council approved by the pope. It is thus “doublely” infalible. First because of the infallibility of the magisterium when united to the pope, and again from the pope.
L
linuxgeek71
Guest
If your sources aren’t the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, the magestirium at council, or the pope then they are just opinions.
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
It seems very clear to me that some Catholics - certainly not all - don’t know their own church very well, much less the definitions of words such as ex cathedra.
Just an observation.
Just an observation.
N
nsper7
Guest
It is interesting you quote only from Pre-Protestant Reformation sources. Remember that before the Protestant Reformation, in the West, anything outside of Catholicism would have been heretical by virtually anyone’s standards (Catholic or Protestant), such as Judaizers and Gnostics.** Outside the church there is no salvation is a doctrine of the Catholic faith that was taught by Jesus Christ to his Apostles, preached by the fathers, defined by popes and councils, and piously believed by the faithful in every age of the church.
A doctrine, or dogma, of the church, is a truth which has been revealed by God and must be believed by all Catholics. When the pope teaches “Ex Cathedra” ( From the chair of Peter), he invokes his highest teaching authority, thus assuring the faithful that such a declaration is dogma.
Here is how three popes solemnly defined “Outside the Church there is no salvation”.
Ex Cathedra: There is but one Universal church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved. (Pope Innocent III, Fourth LAteran Council, 1215).
Ex Cathedra: We declare, say, define and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302).
Ex Cathedra: The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic church. (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)
All Catholics must believe this teaching. To reject it—or even to doubt it deliberately—is to sin mortally against the virtue of faith. Failure to hold and teach this doctrine has led to the present state of affairs in the church of God.
**
Also, perhaps the definition of ‘invincible ignorance’ needs to be re-examined in light of these words from Lumen Gentium: “They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.”
I think virtually every Protestant would fall into the category of not knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ. The history, especially of the first couple centuries of the Post-Apostolic (NT era) Church is just murky enough to leave many a cloud in the Protestant mind. Not to mention there are many Protestant and secular historians who further muddy up the waters on the issue.
L
linuxgeek71
Guest
No it shouldn’t be reinterpreted. It isn’t supposed to be interpretted at all. In the same article of Pius IX that I quoted earlier he said we should not be curious about such things. Also what does it matter that pre-Reformation sources were quoted? Nothing changed for us because of the Reformation. The Church has always been clear they are heretics, so no new “understandings” were needed.
But you do make an interesting point about LG. Thankfully the Church, thourgh the CDF, has released a document to help the faitful in understanding what this document truly says. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
Footnote 4 explicity states that seeking the Catholic Church is required for salvation.
Invincible ignorance alone saves no one. A desire for the Church is required.
N
nsper7
Guest
Footnote 4 mentions the Church of Christ. I think most Protestants (at least the ones who are truly religious) would say they seek Christ and, ipso facto, Christ’s Church, they merely disagree on what constitutes Christ’s Church (i.e. only Catholicism).
L
linuxgeek71
Guest
The document also states the Church of Christ is uniquely the Roman Catholic Church. So your argument doesn’t hold up. They must seeks the the only Church founded by Christ. Disagreeing with the Catholic Church is the same as disagreeing with God when it comes to issues of doctrine.
N
nsper7
Guest
I am not disagreeing. I believe the Roman Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. What I am saying is this:
To a Protestant, they do not believe (thus, they do not know) that Christ’s Church is uniquely the Roman Catholic Church. They seek Christ’s Church, but they do not believe or know that it is the Roman Catholic Church.
L
linuxgeek71
Guest
I believe I understand what you mean now, but I do think think you are abusing LG to draw your conclusion. The Church has given no definite meaning to what desire for the Church is. But what is clear, via many statements by the Church, Protestantism in and of itself is not enough. If there has ever been a Protestant saved it is despite his religion, not because of it. The truths they have, in general, are not enough to save them if they persist in error. But please don’t read this as, all Protestants go to Hell automatically, because I don’t mean that.
I am a convert to the faith. I know what it is like to live outside the Church and have a dersire for something I can’t find. Then to have that desire satisfied when entering the Church. My mother, shortly after me, went through the same thing. And I know that all of her life she has had a desire for the Church but just couldn’t place that that was what it was. Because of these experiences I find it hard to stomach arguments which seem to imply being Protestant is enough. I know for a fact a calling from God makes other faiths feel empty so I don’t see how one can genuinley seek the Church while staying Protestant, in general. This is clearly just a personal view, but it is one that I will defend.
S
swariffin
Guest
Please quote the Catechism saying Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus Est (you forgot est), and how it is supported by Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate. You are falling to the extremism, brother. If the RCC believes as you do, it must first nullify Vatican II council. Then, the RCC should condemn John Paul II, too.
S
swariffin
Guest
BTW, Linux, you have not answered me. Have you found the word “Catholic” in Mat 25:31-46?
L
linuxgeek71
Guest
Why must the quote be from the Catechism? Do you deny the infalllibility of an ecumentical council? If you don’t I’ve quoted the Council of Florence which settles the issue. I’ve also linked to the official explanation of LG which explains what Vatican II was saying. If you disagree with the CDF’s explanation of LG then it is you who are in error, not them. Except for the one time I explicity mentioned in the above that I was giving an opinion, I have only been repeating what popes and Church documents say. You have yet to provide any infallibile document, or fallible for that matter, which says there is slavation outside the Church.
But since you insist on the Catechism see article 846-848.
L
linuxgeek71
Guest
How is that relevant? The Immaculate Conception isn’t mentioned either, but as Catholics we must still believe it. This thread is about Catholics believing a Catholic teaching. I use Catholic sources to support it. I’m not trying to defend this belief to non-Catholics, so I don’t need to find Bible passages to support what I’m saying. Furthermore that passage does not state salvation can be from outside the Church. It is silent on the issue. Short of finding a passage that explicity says you can be saved outside of the Church you don’t have a case.
S
sambos671
Guest
Have you shown that the Pope or the congregation haved deffinatively said these statements were ex-cathedra?
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
But they DO know that Christ established the Catholic church, yet REFUSE to accept or enter it. They are taught immensely just right here on CAF, they are shown historical, archaelogical, and evidence of the one true church, yet refuse to enter it.
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
Sambos…give it up…
- Status