B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Thank you–and a tip of the skouphya! 
- Status
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
\Not of Paul Andrew but of the Church. The Orthodox knowingly rejected (and continue to reject) various points of Catholic doctrine (which is heresy) and have willingly placed themselves outside of the Church.\
**Actually, it’s the Latins who by accepting doctrinal novelties and rejected Orthodox teaching who willingly placed themselves outside of the Church.
See how you sound?
Of course, when you’re not going to change anything, nobody has to be infallible, right?**
**Actually, it’s the Latins who by accepting doctrinal novelties and rejected Orthodox teaching who willingly placed themselves outside of the Church.
See how you sound?
Of course, when you’re not going to change anything, nobody has to be infallible, right?**
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
The Orthodox reject 13 general councils of the Church and many defined dogmas. Anyone who rejects just one dogma is a heretic.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: "For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3).** If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith**: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).
It only takes the rejection of one dogma to make a person, or a sect as such, heretical. The Orthodox reject many dogmas. Therefore, if the Orthodox are not heretics, then a heretic there has never been.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: "For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3).** If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith**: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).
It only takes the rejection of one dogma to make a person, or a sect as such, heretical. The Orthodox reject many dogmas. Therefore, if the Orthodox are not heretics, then a heretic there has never been.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
L
LoyalViews
Guest
So your calling the Church heretic? We certainly aren’t! The Orthodox were the people who chose to seperate, we never forced you. The Pope is the Successor of Peter the first Bishop of Rome. He is the universal head of the Church.
C
cyberwolf001
Guest
When I learned the Church altered this dogma and started back peddling it was the finale issue that convinced me to leave.
After all one of the marks of the Church is her dogmas can never be altered. Alter just one, no matter if you call it fuller understanding or whatever, and it is no longer the true church.
After all one of the marks of the Church is her dogmas can never be altered. Alter just one, no matter if you call it fuller understanding or whatever, and it is no longer the true church.
L
LoyalViews
Guest
Oh my goodness! No, no. I sent out the wrong message —sorry for that my friend. I do not believe that the Orthodox are going to hell. God NO! I even said in other posts that I thought that “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” even included the Orthodox. Sorry that I came accross rather harsh, that happens. Yes, I realize that the the Church and the Orthodox church is seeking reunification, and what a great thing that will be! The Orthodox Church is indeed a “Church” because of their Apostolic Succession from St. Mark, where as I was more focused on the point of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” and other non-Christians, and Protestants. Indeed, I am truly sorry!
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
Your reasoning is correct. The Church cannot change a dogma. Where you are mistaken is thinking the Church did change the dogma. The dogma has never and can never change. As such, no member of the Church - not even the Pope - has the authority to change it.
What has happened in our day is **not **that the Church officially changed an unchangeable dogma, but rather that most members of the hierarchy no longer believe the dogma. The situation today is very similar to what took place during the Arian crisis 1600 years ago. At the time, the vast majority of the Bishops ceased to believe what the Church officially taught - namely, that Jesus was true God. The Church never change the teaching, these people just stopped believing it. And I’m sure they did their best to defend their error, thereby causing much confusion for the faithful. Today we are in a similar situation.
**Bishop Rudolph Graber: **“What happened over 1600 years ago [at the time of the Arian heresy] is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria [the patriarchal see of St. Athanasius] is today the whole universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into silence of being ignored; killing, by assassination of character.”(Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, p. 23):
What has complicated the matter is that we now have documents, such as the new Catechism, that are written in such a way that most people think it supports the common error. These documents can be interpreted in accord with what the Church has always taught, but that is not the way most people interpret them.
Rather than leaving the Church and becoming a Druid, you should return to the Church and fight with those in my camp. I’ve read some of your posts and actually wondered how someone who claims to be a Driud could have such a good sense of the truth. Now I know why it is - you used to be a Catholic. Come back to the Church and join ranks with those who still believe what the Church teaches. It is a good battle to fight, and one that will gain you an eternal reward.
L
LoyalViews
Guest
Indeed 
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
I was careful in how I worded my post, and it was 100% correct. To be saved a person must die as a member of the Roman Catholic Church and be in the state of grace. The Orthodox church is not part of the Roman Catholic Church. If they were, they would not reject 13 general Councils that were ratified by the Pope (which they do reject). Therefore, since there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (which is an infallible dogma), and since the Orthodox sect is not part of the Catholic Church, it follows that those who die as members of the Orthodox sect will go to hell.
Now, I concede that it is possible for one who appears to be a member of the Orthodox church externally, but who is united to the soul of the Catholic Church internally (due to their being in a state of invincible ignorance of the truth) could be saved; but such a person would not die a member of the Orthodox Church, but rather a member of the Catholic Church.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
So…you deny the Catechism but are still true to the Catholic Church? Did I read you right? If so…whom are Catholics to follow…you or the Pope?
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Your opinion. You weren’t careful enough. Not Catholic Church teaching. If you disagree please show us where the Magisterium teaches that (note present tense).
Where does the Catholic Church claim that is an infallible dogma? Why don’t you adhere to the universal Catechism? It was promulgated authoritatively by Pope John Paul II via his Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum. An Apostolic Constitution is one of the highest form of authoritative Papal teaching (higher than an Encyclical or Motu Proprio, for instance). Read the Catechism para 846-848. If you agree with those, as Catholics do, no problem. If you differ…then the burden is on you for why you disagree with the Catholic faith.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
That is not one of the marks of the Church.
The marks of the Church are four: one, holy, catholic, apostolic.
C
cyberwolf001
Guest
I was worried that there was some sort of terminology I’d forgotten in my post inspite of being as generic as possible. Futher more, I was worried that rather than discussing the merits of what I posted somone would argue semantics.
Happens everytime I get in a discussion with a Catholic, why is that?
S
ServantofMary
Guest
The problem isn’t necessarily with the Catechism itself. The problem is that many people interpret the Catechism in a way that is contrary to the teaching of Catholic Tradition. This is what Unitma Ratio was referring to when he wrote (emphasize mine):
“What has complicated the matter is that we now have documents, such as the new Catechism, that are written in such a way that most people think it supports the common error. These documents can be interpreted in accord with what the Church has always taught, but that is not the way most people interpret them.”
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
You married your parish priest 
. Setting aside the prudence of this decision of your Priest, the canonical laws with respect to marriage can be dispensed with. That’s why a Protestant can marry another Protestant validly. For a baptized person to be married validly, he must follow the laws of the Catholic Church. If not, the marriage is invalid. The Catholic Church dispenses the Protestants from certain laws (such as those requiring them to be married in the Catholic Church), which is why they can be married validly outside of the Church. I think Catholics can be given similar dispensations, so my guess is that you received such a dispensation, thereby allowing you to be married by a Priest of a non Catholic church.
The fact that communion is valid at the Orthodox Divine Liturgy is beside the point. We are not supposed to receive communion or any sacrament from a heretic or schismatic unless there is an extra-ordinary necessity, such as the fear of death. By receiving communion, you are implicitly saying that you are in communion with them and what they believe, and if you are in communion with what they believe you would reject 13 general councils of the Church and numerous dogmas.
The reason for the confusion over this matter is because there is a new ecclesiology - a new understanding of what the Church is - that is being promoted by many members of the hierarchy. This new ecclesiology makes what was always extremely clear, very unclear.
Only kidding about the marrying your priest joke
. Setting aside the prudence of this decision of your Priest, the canonical laws with respect to marriage can be dispensed with. That’s why a Protestant can marry another Protestant validly. For a baptized person to be married validly, he must follow the laws of the Catholic Church. If not, the marriage is invalid. The Catholic Church dispenses the Protestants from certain laws (such as those requiring them to be married in the Catholic Church), which is why they can be married validly outside of the Church. I think Catholics can be given similar dispensations, so my guess is that you received such a dispensation, thereby allowing you to be married by a Priest of a non Catholic church.Do some research on “communio in sacris”, which means inter communion with non-Catholics, to see what the Church has always taught about this practice. It has always been forbidden, but the impression is that it is permitted by the Church today. Disciplines can be modified by the Church, but it is difficult to imagine that communio in sacris is a discipline that can be modified. Also keep in mind that Cardinal Ratzinger gave communion to a known Protestant minister (Brother Roger of the Taize community) at John Paul II’s funeral (pictures are available online), yet no one claims that Protestant sects are part of the Catholic Church.2)We may recieve in the Orthodox Church. Well that is if you can find an Orthodox priest who will let you
The fact that communion is valid at the Orthodox Divine Liturgy is beside the point. We are not supposed to receive communion or any sacrament from a heretic or schismatic unless there is an extra-ordinary necessity, such as the fear of death. By receiving communion, you are implicitly saying that you are in communion with them and what they believe, and if you are in communion with what they believe you would reject 13 general councils of the Church and numerous dogmas.
Truthfully, I don’t know what the definition of a denomination is. I would assume it refers specifically to the Protestant sects. The Orthodox differ from them, in that they have material (not formal) apostolic succession and valid Orders. Your Priest may have been (and probably was) correct in his terminololy. But again, that is beside the point. Material apostolic succession does not make a sect part of the Church. Were the Donatists - who also had valid apostolic succession - part of the Catholic Church? No they weren’t. Neither were any of the other heresies or schisms during the first 1000 years part of the Church, even though most of them had valid material apostolic succession and valid Orders.
The reason for the confusion over this matter is because there is a new ecclesiology - a new understanding of what the Church is - that is being promoted by many members of the hierarchy. This new ecclesiology makes what was always extremely clear, very unclear.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Need I paraphrase this just to show how UGLY and TRIUMPHALIST it sounds?
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
You can call it triumpalists if you wish, but it is the truth. The Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. I’m sure you would consider the following quote from St. Augustine as UGLY and TRIUMPALIST as well.
Saint Augustine, Doctor of the Church: “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honour, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermon to the People of Caesaria)
But remember, it is not too late for you. You can still enter into the Catholic Church… and I sincerely hope that you do.
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
"Ultima Ratio:
I’m curious, what part of my post was ugly, ugly? Was it the part where I said "the Catholic Church is the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation (which is a dogam)? Or was it the quote I provided from St. Augustin? Or was it the end where I said I sincerely hoped he would convert? Which part was ugly?
C
Cristiano
Guest
You are so full of it that you just condemned our Eastern Catholic brothers to hell because the are not part of the Roman Catholic Church, they are just simple Catholics. 100% correct? Yeah right!
- Status