I still just don't get it

[mozart-250]

This was under another thread that went to thread heaven (or thread purgatory). I don’t get it, because after having been two years or so on these forums, I still dunno exactly what y’all think of us.

This is what I have figured out thus far as a non-Catholic.

Catholics of course have the advantage of tradition (whatever that is) and a teaching magisterium that is incapable of being incorrect. As a result they have what is called “Catholic unity” as opposed to the Protestants who all believe “Sola Scriptura” which has produced approximately 3567128 denominations with the number increasing daily.

Catholics believe something called “There is no salvation outside of the Catholic church”. Now I could ask where in the Bible they get that from, but of course that is an invalid question because Catholics don’t believe in “Sola Scriptura” and they do not operate under the limitations that Protestants do of making sure that the Bible actually teaches something before they believe it.

Now the quote “There is no salvation salvation outside of the Catholic church” was said (I think) first by St. Cyprius of Carthage in 150AD or so when the Catholic church was the only game in town outside of the gnostics and other weirdos. It is perfectly logical according to Catholicism to lift that quote, dogmatize it, and plop it down here in the 21st century under conditions that St. Cyprius couldn’t even imagine.

Now to some Catholics this is quite cut and dry. It was quite clear that St. Cyprius meant (and later reaffirmed by many popes through the ages), that if you are not a card carrying Catholic you go directly to hell…do not pass go…do not collect $200. Well perhaps maybe something called “invincible ignorance” could apply to a few. But for folks like me who know of the claims of Catholicism and still obstinately remain outside of the “Ark of Safety”, “invincible ignorance” just does not apply. We bake in the lake forever when we die.

However to some Catholics this quote has a different meaning. Vatican 2.0 has changed the rules that somehow we now are separated brethren (I know that really the rules have not changed and some really smart people can tell me how this is the same thing…but by all appearances to folks like me who apparantly lack reading comprehension skills is that something has changed). The best explanation I have received is that now I am already a Catholic (having been baptized under the trinitarian formula), I just don’t know it yet. Maybe in purgatory I will get a clue.

Anyway, this perspective is the one that is supported from the Catechism which as we all know is the authentic guide to Catholic teaching.

However, to the other Catholics, Vatican 2.0 changed nothing. I have received a number of explanations as to why this is ranging from
(1) It is not infallible and therefore is heretical because it conflicts with what previous popes have infallibly declared,
(2) See (1) with the added twist and the popes that produced this heresy are really antipopes, The Catholic church now lacks a valid pope
(3) It is not heresy, but the Catechism has misinterpreted it and is incorrect.

And on it goes. Having followed these forums for some time, I have concluded that Catholics disagree amongst themselves on what exactly their own church teaches in this regard.

Meanwhile, Catholics of course have an infallible magisterium that has created “Catholic unity” as opposed to Protestants who all believe in “Sola Scriptura” that has created about 5672398 protestant denominations.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This was under another thread that went to thread heaven (or thread purgatory). I don’t get it, because after having been two years or so on these forums, I still dunno exactly what y’all think of us.

This is what I have figured out thus far as a non-Catholic.

Catholics of course have the advantage of tradition (whatever that is) and a teaching magisterium that is incapable of being incorrect. As a result they have what is called “Catholic unity” as opposed to the Protestants who all believe “Sola Scriptura” which has produced approximately 3567128 denominations with the number increasing daily.

Catholics believe something called “There is no salvation outside of the Catholic church”. Now I could ask where in the Bible they get that from, but of course that is an invalid question because Catholics don’t believe in “Sola Scriptura” and they do not operate under the limitations that Protestants do of making sure that the Bible actually teaches something before they believe it.

Now the quote “There is no salvation salvation outside of the Catholic church” was said (I think) first by St. Cyprius of Carthage in 150AD or so when the Catholic church was the only game in town outside of the gnostics and other weirdos. It is perfectly logical according to Catholicism to lift that quote, dogmatize it, and plop it down here in the 21st century under conditions that St. Cyprius couldn’t even imagine.

Now to some Catholics this is quite cut and dry. It was quite clear that St. Cyprius meant (and later reaffirmed by many popes through the ages), that if you are not a card carrying Catholic you go directly to hell…do not pass go…do not collect $200. Well perhaps maybe something called “invincible ignorance” could apply to a few. But for folks like me who know of the claims of Catholicism and still obstinately remain outside of the “Ark of Safety”, “invincible ignorance” just does not apply. We bake in the lake forever when we die.

However to some Catholics this quote has a different meaning. Vatican 2.0 has changed the rules that somehow we now are separated brethren (I know that really the rules have not changed and some really smart people can tell me how this is the same thing…but by all appearances to folks like me who apparantly lack reading comprehension skills is that something has changed). The best explanation I have received is that now I am already a Catholic (having been baptized under the trinitarian formula), I just don’t know it yet. Maybe in purgatory I will get a clue.

Anyway, this perspective is the one that is supported from the Catechism which as we all know is the authentic guide to Catholic teaching.

However, to the other Catholics, Vatican 2.0 changed nothing. I have received a number of explanations as to why this is ranging from
(1) It is not infallible and therefore is heretical because it conflicts with what previous popes have infallibly declared,
(2) See (1) with the added twist and the popes that produced this heresy are really antipopes, The Catholic church now lacks a valid pope
(3) It is not heresy, but the Catechism has misinterpreted it and is incorrect.

And on it goes. Having followed these forums for some time, I have concluded that Catholics disagree amongst themselves on what exactly their own church teaches in this regard.

Meanwhile, Catholics of course have an infallible magisterium that has created “Catholic unity” as opposed to Protestants who all believe in “Sola Scriptura” that has created about 5672398 protestant denominations.

Let me put it this way. Catholic faith can be sum up in the following. In the fullness of time, God spoke to us to our fathers by the prophets but in these last days, he spoken to us by his son. When Jesus came, he lived, died, and rose from the dead. He did not leave us behind. He established a Church, one Church. The Catholic Church upon Peter. He revealed himself to us. This Divine Revelation show that that Jesus came to save us from our sins. Most of what he taught was orally preached by the him and by his apostles. By their preaching, converts came in the thousands, starting first in Judea and then the entire Roman Empire. Jesus’ teaching was preserved in this Early Church through both oral and written means, and the authority of the Apostles did not end but continue through their successors. Christ’s Church has Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial Authority. Every teachings concerning faith and moral is unchangible. The Church also have the power to instill church laws, or disciplines which can change.

Conclusion: Catholic doctrine does not believe that the Church and Jesus are separated. Protestants here have often try to show us Catholics that the Church and Jesus are separated but the Bible disagrees with that. They even go as far as all you need ins Jesus and not the Church. Since when did Jesus divorce his Church? I don’t even see a passage in the Bible that Jesus will abandon his Church. In fact, in the Book of Revelation depicts the Church as the New Jerusalem coming like a Bride of the Lamb.

The Church and Jesus are One. There is a unity in this all. The unity itself is Trinitarian. The problem I see in Protestant theory Sola Scriptura has the concept that Scripture Alone is all that is needed and this completely disregard other passages of the Bible concerning what the Church is.

I have a question for Protestants here.

Why do you separate the Church from Jesus? That is one thing I don’t get. You insist on going by the Bible but does not seem to be the case here when you separate the Church and Jesus

 

[TriuneUnity]

I have a question for Protestants here.

Why do you separate the Church from Jesus? That is one thing I don’t get. You insist on going by the Bible but does not seem to be the case here when you separate the Church and Jesus

The simple answer is that we do not separate from the Church of Jesus. The presupposition you are operating under (and justly so, you are Catholic, after all) is that the modern Roman Catholic Church is the visible Church of Jesus. All Christians who have been reborn through water and the word are members of the Body of Christ, or the ecclesia, or the Church. They gather in congregations, or the church visible. This church is recognized by the faithful proclamation of the Word, and the right administration of the sacraments. It is on this second aspect that we do not believe Rome to be the true visible Church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The simple answer is that we do not separate from the Church of Jesus. The presupposition you are operating under (and justly so, you are Catholic, after all) is that the modern Roman Catholic Church is the visible Church of Jesus. All Christians who have been reborn through water and the word are members of the Body of Christ, or the ecclesia, or the Church. They gather in congregations, or the church visible. This church is recognized by the faithful proclamation of the Word, and the right administration of the sacraments. It is on this second aspect that we do not believe Rome to be the true visible Church.

A true Christian would say that Church and Christ are not separated. However, I have heard from Evangelical Christians (not Lutherans) that you don’t need the Church and all you need is Jesus. How do you explain that?

 

[mozart-250]

The Church and Jesus are One. There is a unity in this all. The unity itself is Trinitarian. The problem I see in Protestant theory Sola Scriptura has the concept that Scripture Alone is all that is needed and this completely disregard other passages of the Bible concerning what the Church is.

I understand all of that from your perspective (now I disagree but that is outside of the scope of this thread…I will piggyback my answers to your questions with Triune Unity).

What I don’t understand is exactly what y’all think of us.

One person here very well articulated based on the pronouncements of past popes that my only hope of seeing the pearly gates would be invincible ignorance, which hardly applies in my case.

Another person here very well articulated based on the Catechism is that “I am already Catholic but just don’t know it yet” (in purgatory I will see the light).

Maybe I am stupid, but I just can’t reconcile these statements.

I would think that with the advantage of an infallible magisterium and tradition (as opposed to us who poor folks who are disadvantaged with just the Bible), that I would get one answer to the question of where I stand.

 

[ibkc]

What I don’t understand is exactly what y’all think of us.

One person here very well articulated based on the pronouncements of past popes that my only hope of seeing the pearly gates would be invincible ignorance, which hardly applies in my case.

Another person here very well articulated based on the Catechism is that “I am already Catholic but just don’t know it” (in purgatory I will see the light).

Maybe I am stupid, but I just can’t reconcile these statements.

I would think that with the advantage of an infallible magisterium and tradition (as opposed to us who poor folks who just use the Bible), that I would get one answer to the question of where I stand.

I was taught in RCIA that non-Catholics’ only hope of seeing heaven is invincible ignorance, but that Vat2 teaching softened the definition of “invincible ignorance” in order to convey that no one knows the mind of God, therefore we cannot say how He will deal with individuals, especially in this era of many thousands of Christian groups, all teaching something different. I think the disagreement you are seeing among Catholics stems from the different opinions of whether this softening of the language was a good or a bad thing. The traditionalist opinion is that the truth must not be watered down; the more modernist opinion is that we Catholics must be careful to not alienate people. Although I can see both sides, I tend to side with the traditionalists on this issue. I don’t care for ambiguity.

 

[mozart-250]

I think the disagreement you are seeing among Catholics stems from the different opinions of whether this softening of the language was a good or a bad thing. The traditionalist opinion is that the truth must not be watered down; the more modernist opinion is that we Catholics must be careful to not alienate people. Although I can see both sides, I tend to side with the traditionalists on this issue. I don’t care for ambiguity.

So you acknowledge that Catholics disagree on this point.

You can understand why this point would be kind of important to me. I would sort of like to have my eternal destiny to be settled as much as possible this side of the grave.

Yet I am not getting one answer here. Since you have all of the advantages of an infallible magisterium and tradition, that seems to be a great big disconnect to me.

 

[CarolinNC]

Well, I’m new here, but what I think about you is tht you are my neighbor. And if I believe Jesus, I am suppose to love my neighbor as myself, I do believe so this how I see you, a person to love.

I am also admonished by Jesus not to judge, so I don’t. I leave all judgment to our loving and merciful Lord.

So, I love you and don’t judge.

 

[ibkc]

So you acknowledge that Catholics disagree on this point.

Oh yes, and I can see why. To me, the teaching itself is pretty clear, but the way it is taught in the modern church leaves the door open for all sorts of muddled interpretations.

You can understand why this point would be kind of important to me. I would sort of like to have my eternal destiny to be settled this side of the grave.

I was in your shoes just a year ago, and I chose the strictest interpretation. Why leave something like that up to question?

Yet I am not getting one answer here. Since you have all of the advantages of an infallible magisterium and tradition, that seems to be a great big disconnect to me.

This thread and its associated article may be enlightening for you to read as far as understanding why there is confusion on some Church teachings. You are seeing the fruit of the revolt against the Magisterium referred to in the article. Pope Benedict is working hard to clean up that mess and heal the wounds it caused.

 

[Jennifer_J]

So you acknowledge that Catholics disagree on this point.

You can understand why this point would be kind of important to me. I would sort of like to have my eternal destiny to be settled as much as possible this side of the grave.

Yet I am not getting one answer here. Since you have all of the advantages of an infallible magisterium and tradition, that seems to be a great big disconnect to me.

See, this is the sticking point, as Catholics, we HOPE for salvation and work for salvation and believe in the infinite Mercy of God, but it isn’t simply handed to us because I profess my love for Jesus and answered an altar call (sorry, I used to be Baptist ) We are working out our salvation with fear and trembling and won’t truly know our destination until we meet God face to face–or don’t, as the case may be . This keeps us on our toes As Catholics, we hope for the salvation of all and know the easiest way is THROUGH the Catholic Church. We also realize that God’s mercy is infinite and He could save whoever he wants. All of my family is NOT Catholic and part of my dh’s family is NOT Catholic. We pray for them all the time–that they convert or barring that the Mercy of God allows them into heaven.

So, I love non-Catholics as that’s my family. I also worry about their and my own salvation because, well, this world is difficult. I’ll leave the judging to God and will continue to pray.

God bless

 

[kalt]

You don’t have to stay confused. Get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or look for it online.

You’re right, though. Many Catholics don’t know what the Church teaches, and that doesn’t stop them from making authoritative-sounding statements.

This was under another thread that went to thread heaven (or thread purgatory). I don’t get it, because after having been two years or so on these forums, I still dunno exactly what y’all think of us.

This is what I have figured out thus far as a non-Catholic.

Catholics of course have the advantage of tradition (whatever that is) and a teaching magisterium that is incapable of being incorrect. As a result they have what is called “Catholic unity” as opposed to the Protestants who all believe “Sola Scriptura” which has produced approximately 3567128 denominations with the number increasing daily.

Catholics believe something called “There is no salvation outside of the Catholic church”. Now I could ask where in the Bible they get that from, but of course that is an invalid question because Catholics don’t believe in “Sola Scriptura” and they do not operate under the limitations that Protestants do of making sure that the Bible actually teaches something before they believe it.

Now the quote “There is no salvation salvation outside of the Catholic church” was said (I think) first by St. Cyprius of Carthage in 150AD or so when the Catholic church was the only game in town outside of the gnostics and other weirdos. It is perfectly logical according to Catholicism to lift that quote, dogmatize it, and plop it down here in the 21st century under conditions that St. Cyprius couldn’t even imagine.

Now to some Catholics this is quite cut and dry. It was quite clear that St. Cyprius meant (and later reaffirmed by many popes through the ages), that if you are not a card carrying Catholic you go directly to hell…do not pass go…do not collect $200. Well perhaps maybe something called “invincible ignorance” could apply to a few. But for folks like me who know of the claims of Catholicism and still obstinately remain outside of the “Ark of Safety”, “invincible ignorance” just does not apply. We bake in the lake forever when we die.

However to some Catholics this quote has a different meaning. Vatican 2.0 has changed the rules that somehow we now are separated brethren (I know that really the rules have not changed and some really smart people can tell me how this is the same thing…but by all appearances to folks like me who apparantly lack reading comprehension skills is that something has changed). The best explanation I have received is that now I am already a Catholic (having been baptized under the trinitarian formula), I just don’t know it yet. Maybe in purgatory I will get a clue.

Anyway, this perspective is the one that is supported from the Catechism which as we all know is the authentic guide to Catholic teaching.

However, to the other Catholics, Vatican 2.0 changed nothing. I have received a number of explanations as to why this is ranging from
(1) It is not infallible and therefore is heretical because it conflicts with what previous popes have infallibly declared,
(2) See (1) with the added twist and the popes that produced this heresy are really antipopes, The Catholic church now lacks a valid pope
(3) It is not heresy, but the Catechism has misinterpreted it and is incorrect.

And on it goes. Having followed these forums for some time, I have concluded that Catholics disagree amongst themselves on what exactly their own church teaches in this regard.

Meanwhile, Catholics of course have an infallible magisterium that has created “Catholic unity” as opposed to Protestants who all believe in “Sola Scriptura” that has created about 5672398 protestant denominations.

 

[Hisalone]

Its very simple really, Catholics want to complicate it.
When you have Jesus you are part of His body, the body of Christ. When you have Jesus and are part of His body you are a memeber of His Church, His community.
The problem with Catholics is that they have falsely defined church thus they cannot see this very simple point.

Hmmmm I posted this on the wrong thread it does however fit so I am leaving it.

 

[cheese_sdc]

This was under another thread that went to thread heaven (or thread purgatory). I don’t get it, because after having been two years or so on these forums, I still dunno exactly what y’all think of us.

This is what I have figured out thus far as a non-Catholic.

Catholics of course have the advantage of tradition (whatever that is) and a teaching magisterium that is incapable of being incorrect. As a result they have what is called “Catholic unity” as opposed to the Protestants who all believe “Sola Scriptura” which has produced approximately 3567128 denominations with the number increasing daily.

Catholics believe something called “There is no salvation outside of the Catholic church”. Now I could ask where in the Bible they get that from, but of course that is an invalid question because Catholics don’t believe in “Sola Scriptura” and they do not operate under the limitations that Protestants do of making sure that the Bible actually teaches something before they believe it.

Now the quote “There is no salvation salvation outside of the Catholic church” was said (I think) first by St. Cyprius of Carthage in 150AD or so when the Catholic church was the only game in town outside of the gnostics and other weirdos. It is perfectly logical according to Catholicism to lift that quote, dogmatize it, and plop it down here in the 21st century under conditions that St. Cyprius couldn’t even imagine.

Now to some Catholics this is quite cut and dry. It was quite clear that St. Cyprius meant (and later reaffirmed by many popes through the ages), that if you are not a card carrying Catholic you go directly to hell…do not pass go…do not collect $200. Well perhaps maybe something called “invincible ignorance” could apply to a few. But for folks like me who know of the claims of Catholicism and still obstinately remain outside of the “Ark of Safety”, “invincible ignorance” just does not apply. We bake in the lake forever when we die.

However to some Catholics this quote has a different meaning. Vatican 2.0 has changed the rules that somehow we now are separated brethren (I know that really the rules have not changed and some really smart people can tell me how this is the same thing…but by all appearances to folks like me who apparantly lack reading comprehension skills is that something has changed). The best explanation I have received is that now I am already a Catholic (having been baptized under the trinitarian formula), I just don’t know it yet. Maybe in purgatory I will get a clue.

Anyway, this perspective is the one that is supported from the Catechism which as we all know is the authentic guide to Catholic teaching.

However, to the other Catholics, Vatican 2.0 changed nothing. I have received a number of explanations as to why this is ranging from
(1) It is not infallible and therefore is heretical because it conflicts with what previous popes have infallibly declared,
(2) See (1) with the added twist and the popes that produced this heresy are really antipopes, The Catholic church now lacks a valid pope
(3) It is not heresy, but the Catechism has misinterpreted it and is incorrect.

And on it goes. Having followed these forums for some time, I have concluded that Catholics disagree amongst themselves on what exactly their own church teaches in this regard.

Meanwhile, Catholics of course have an infallible magisterium that has created “Catholic unity” as opposed to Protestants who all believe in “Sola Scriptura” that has created about 5672398 protestant denominations.

I like this guy.

 

[mozart-250]

You don’t have to stay confused. Get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or look for it online.

You’re right, though. Many Catholics don’t know what the Church teaches, and that doesn’t stop them from making authoritative-sounding statements.

I understand. I have read the relevant quotes in the Catechism.

From what I have observed here, the folks who believe “I am already Catholic but just don’t know it yet” have as their starting point the Catechism. I get the point. Catholics (actually anyone) should be able to read the Catechism to determine what Catholics believe.

But from what I have also believed here, the folks who believe “Protestants bake in the lake” start with the pronounciations of previous popes that are incapable of being incorrect. They note these pronounciations have a higher authority level within Catholicism than the Catechism.

They also seem to have a point. And if I read these statements of old, it certainly does not sound like these popes believed we were “separated brethren”.

 

[mozart-250]

See, this is the sticking point, as Catholics, we HOPE for salvation and work for salvation and believe in the infinite Mercy of God, but it isn’t simply handed to us because I profess my love for Jesus and answered an altar call (sorry, I used to be Baptist )

I understand that. That is why I belatedly edited my post to add the words “as much as possible” to them. I wanted the issue of “well how much assurance of salvation do we as Christians get” be separate.

However, I would still expect better from a church that has an authority that is incapable of being incorrect than conflicting and mixed messages when I ask a simple question on “am I (probably) going to hell for being Protestant or do I somehow get a pass”. But maybe I am naive.

For the record, I am somewhere between the folks who say it is all a gimme if you go down front of the church in an alter call when you are 8, and the folks who say that you can have no assurance of salvation, that all you can do is give it your best shot and hope for the best the other side of the grave. Both seem wrong. But that is a separate issue.

 

[Syele]

This was under another thread that went to thread heaven (or thread purgatory). I don’t get it, because after having been two years or so on these forums, I still dunno exactly what y’all think of us.

This is what I have figured out thus far as a non-Catholic.

Catholics of course have the advantage of tradition (whatever that is) and a teaching magisterium that is incapable of being incorrect. As a result they have what is called “Catholic unity” as opposed to the Protestants who all believe “Sola Scriptura” which has produced approximately 3567128 denominations with the number increasing daily.

Catholics believe something called “There is no salvation outside of the Catholic church”. Now I could ask where in the Bible they get that from, but of course that is an invalid question because Catholics don’t believe in “Sola Scriptura” and they do not operate under the limitations that Protestants do of making sure that the Bible actually teaches something before they believe it.

Now the quote “There is no salvation salvation outside of the Catholic church” was said (I think) first by St. Cyprius of Carthage in 150AD or so when the Catholic church was the only game in town outside of the gnostics and other weirdos. It is perfectly logical according to Catholicism to lift that quote, dogmatize it, and plop it down here in the 21st century under conditions that St. Cyprius couldn’t even imagine.

Now to some Catholics this is quite cut and dry. It was quite clear that St. Cyprius meant (and later reaffirmed by many popes through the ages), that if you are not a card carrying Catholic you go directly to hell…do not pass go…do not collect $200. Well perhaps maybe something called “invincible ignorance” could apply to a few. But for folks like me who know of the claims of Catholicism and still obstinately remain outside of the “Ark of Safety”, “invincible ignorance” just does not apply. We bake in the lake forever when we die.

However to some Catholics this quote has a different meaning. Vatican 2.0 has changed the rules that somehow we now are separated brethren (I know that really the rules have not changed and some really smart people can tell me how this is the same thing…but by all appearances to folks like me who apparantly lack reading comprehension skills is that something has changed). The best explanation I have received is that now I am already a Catholic (having been baptized under the trinitarian formula), I just don’t know it yet. Maybe in purgatory I will get a clue.

Anyway, this perspective is the one that is supported from the Catechism which as we all know is the authentic guide to Catholic teaching.

However, to the other Catholics, Vatican 2.0 changed nothing. I have received a number of explanations as to why this is ranging from
(1) It is not infallible and therefore is heretical because it conflicts with what previous popes have infallibly declared,
(2) See (1) with the added twist and the popes that produced this heresy are really antipopes, The Catholic church now lacks a valid pope
(3) It is not heresy, but the Catechism has misinterpreted it and is incorrect.

And on it goes. Having followed these forums for some time, I have concluded that Catholics disagree amongst themselves on what exactly their own church teaches in this regard.

Meanwhile, Catholics of course have an infallible magisterium that has created “Catholic unity” as opposed to Protestants who all believe in “Sola Scriptura” that has created about 5672398 protestant denominations.

:clapping:

 

[mozart-250]

Oh yes, and I can see why. To me, the teaching itself is pretty clear, but the way it is taught in the modern church leaves the door open for all sorts of muddled interpretations.

But it is taught in the Catechism. Are you saying that the Catechism is wrong?

This thread and its associated article may be enlightening for you to read as far as understanding why there is confusion on some Church teachings. You are seeing the fruit of the revolt against the Magisterium referred to in the article. Pope Benedict is working hard to clean up that mess and heal the wounds it caused.

That article seems to be a separate issue. That article seems to be on dissenters to “Humane Vitae” (are the issues here like abortion, artificial contraception, and married priests).

I am talking about my eternal soul here. I would like to get one answer on just how much in danger it is. I would think that a church that has sacred tradition and a magisterium that is incapable of being incorrect should be able to give me one answer as opposed to us poor saps who just use the Bible.

 

[mozart-250]

I was taught in RCIA that non-Catholics’ only hope of seeing heaven is invincible ignorance, but that Vat2 teaching softened the definition of “invincible ignorance” in order to convey that no one knows the mind of God, therefore we cannot say how He will deal with individuals, especially in this era of many thousands of Christian groups, all teaching something different. I think the disagreement you are seeing among Catholics stems from the different opinions of whether this softening of the language was a good or a bad thing. The traditionalist opinion is that the truth must not be watered down; the more modernist opinion is that we Catholics must be careful to not alienate people. Although I can see both sides, I tend to side with the traditionalists on this issue. I don’t care for ambiguity.

I dunno, but to me “invincible ignorance” is pretty much plain English.

If you are ignorant of Catholicism, you can get a pass for not being Catholic. But for somebody like me who probably understands Catholicism more than many or most Catholics and still obstinately refuses to convert, well…how do I put it…we fry when we die.

 

[notself]

I spent quite a bit of time on this question with people in this forum. Finally a poster named roguejim provided me with a list of pronouncements by popes and doctors of the Church. It makes it clear to me as a former Catholic and now a Buddhist that the Church clearly states I am beyond salvation (unless I change my beliefs). Here is roguejim’s list of quotes.

roguejim;3583880]The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV

“…It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

“The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman: unique, the Chair founded on Peter. Outside her fold is to be found neither the true fold nor eternal salvation, for it is impossible to have God for a Father if one does not have the Church for a Mother.”
VEN POPE PIUS IX

“There is only one universal church of the faithful, outside which there is absolutely no salvation.”
IV Lateran Council

“It is a sin to believe there is salvation outside the Catholic Church!”
VEN POPE PIUS IX

“There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes.”
ST LOUIS MARIE DE MONTFORT

“It must be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only
Ark of Salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood.”
VEN POPE PIUS IX

“There is no entering into salvation outside of the Church, just as in the time of the Deluge there was none outside the Ark which denotes the Church.”
POPE JOHN PAUL II

“I profess that outside the Catholic Church no one is saved.”
POPE SYLVESTER II

“It is impossible to be joined to God except through Jesus Christ; it is impossilbe to be united to Christ except in and through the Church; finally, it is impossible to belong to the Church except through the bishops who are united to the Supreme Pastor, the successor of Peter.”
POPE JOHN XXIII

“The Catholic Church alone is the Body of Christ, of which He is Head and Savior. The “People of God” and the “Mystical Body of Christ” are one and the same thing, both of them designating the Church. Membership in the Church requires conditions other than Baptism alone; it requires identical faith and unity of communion, so that by means of the Catholic Church alone, which is the unrestricted instrument of salvation, is it possible to obtain the fulness of the means to salvation. Indeed, the Church is both a sure and an exclusive means of attaining salvation. We must always remember the unity of the Mystical Body outside which there is no salvation, for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church. Outside this Body, the Holy Spirit gives life to no one: those who are enemies to unity do not participate in the charity of Divine Life; those outside the Church do not possess the Holy Spirit. The entrance to salvation is open to no one outside the Church!”
POPE PAUL VI

First point: Authority.

Internet posters have no authority, which is why I like to quote popes, saints, and councils. Therein, lies Catholic authority. If it’s just opinions you are looking for, there will be many. But, are they authoritative and true?

Second point: Context.

There will be many people here posing as Catholics, who will try and ecumenize these quotes to make them less offensive to you. They will say that I have pulled these quotes out of context. Eternal truth, such as is represented by these quotes, like mathematical truth, has no context. What is the context of 2+2=4? Of course, there is no context. It is true on its very face.

If anyone feels that roguejim has taken these quotes out of context, please provide that context or link. No one has so far.

 

[mozart-250]

I spent quite a bit of time on this question with people in this forum. Finally a poster named roguejim provided me with a list of pronouncements by popes and doctors of the Church. It makes it clear to me as a former Catholic and now a Buddhist that the Church clearly states I am beyond salvation (unless I change my beliefs). Here is roguejim’s list of quotes.

If anyone feels that roguejim has taken these quotes out of context, please provide that context or link. No one has so far.

Thanks for bringing up the quotes. I was too lazy to do so.

I remember roguejim and that thread.

Although he was a minority voice, he actually was rather convincing. It does sound rather cut and dry.

Maybe the church though has changed from these popes. When I read the Catechism, it certainly sounds that way. But course we all know that just can not be.