M
Mike30
Guest
Then to put it in simple terms, what constitutes the plan of salvation/
- Status
C
crazzeto
Guest
Gods plan to make salvation available to us all.
O
otjm
Guest
Theology is a combination of two Greek words: Theos (God) and Logos ((word).
As Muslims believe in one God (as do both Christians and Jews), how do you arrive at your statement? The Church does not hold that position.
What the Church holds is that there is (limited) truth in the Muslims theological understanding of God (as the Church also holds with Jewish theology), and that the Catholic Church, through Christ, as the fullness of theology.
C
CatholicGeek1
Guest
The ultimate will of God is that all be saved. Therefore, all are included in the plan of salvation. However, many will not follow God’s will and plan and therefore they are not saved.
M
Mike30
Guest
And how is that salvation to be made available to all?
D
devoutchristian
Guest
Muslims worship God in accordance with the virtue of religion, which falls under natural justice. They do not, however, have faith, which is a supernatural virtue that is intrinsically related to th Christian revelation (Thus baptism is called “the sacrament of faith”).
Read Dominus Iesus.
C
crazzeto
Guest
By grace, I feel like I"m trying to be lead to confusion. But there just isn’t any. ‘Plan of salvation’ in no way equates with ‘universal salvation’. Otherwise we have to start understanding many usages of ‘plan of’ to mean an absolute.
O
otjm
Guest
Shell game? That is a rather strong statement about theology, one that Benedict 16 certainly does not hold. And given that he is one of the best and brightest theologians today (if not the best and brightest), I would tend to pay attention to what he says long before I paid attention to any number of other people who seem to be “at the microphone”.
For starters, the Church does not consider current day Protestants to be heretics as was referred to the original founders of the various churches.
Did the Popes realize that? We can’t really answer that without a thorough and complete review of all of their writings.
What some people fail to understand is that when Pope speaks, he speaks to a specific issue from a specific point to be made; he is not likely to make a full exposition of all possible theological permutations and exceptions. He is addressing a specific issue with a specific response; other related questions which may not be occurring at the time are not being answered as they have not been asked. There is also the issue of prudence; if he is facing a major problem, he is not going to go off on side issues which could distract from the major issue at hand. That does not mean the side issues are not there; it means they are not addressed. It also does not mean they cannot be addressed at some future time.
Getting into a “he said it, I believe it, that ends it” approach to what has been addressed in the past is to presume that all possible permutations and exceptions have been answered. History alone should show that is not the case as the Church continues on to answer different, but related questions as time passes.
Keep in mind that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church’; that in itself should indicate that when the Church speaks about faith and/or morals, that if it appears to be contradictory, it almost always means that the person in the pew lacks certain understanding of the issue; either they have too little training in the matter, or the nuances are beyond them. We seem to have this idea that every word that issues from a Pope’s pen is meant to be understood by the least educated laymen. Where that came from I still have not been able to ascertain; but it certainly seems to be the operative foundation of a lot of questioning of, say, the last five Popes (( I had to include John Paul 1, even if nobody got much steam up about him).
C
crazzeto
Guest
Lets reverse the quesitoning. Take the term ‘plan of salvation’. Where was the absolute placed?
O
otjm
Guest
Oops - I think my first comment was READY! FIRE! AIM!
I was referring to theology, as popposed to your specific comment about theological faith (as distinguished from theological belief).
Maybe I should read all the words?
D
devoutchristian
Guest
I specified theological faith in order to differentiate from uses of the term that speak of natural acts (like saying that you have faith in someone, when you really mean that you trust them). So my use of the word theological was the source of the confusion?Oops - I think my first comment was READY! FIRE! AIM!
I was referring to theology, as popposed to your specific comment about theological faith (as distinguished from theological belief).
Maybe I should read all the words?
L
Latinitas
Guest
Back to the original post,
Those who assert that Vatican II was not dogmatic, but only pastoral are correct. They are however, binding, and are part of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Since they are not infallible, however, they only require assent of the will and mind, not necessarily acceptance de fide. Nor does one actually have to agree with them. They could be subject to constructive criticism. So, there is much truth in what they claim; we cannot call SSPXers heretics for denying Vatican II (a heretic being defined as someone who voluntarily denies Catholic dogma), however, more likely, they use this as an excuse to separate and work against the Holy Father and Church.
Benedicat Deus
Those who assert that Vatican II was not dogmatic, but only pastoral are correct. They are however, binding, and are part of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Since they are not infallible, however, they only require assent of the will and mind, not necessarily acceptance de fide. Nor does one actually have to agree with them. They could be subject to constructive criticism. So, there is much truth in what they claim; we cannot call SSPXers heretics for denying Vatican II (a heretic being defined as someone who voluntarily denies Catholic dogma), however, more likely, they use this as an excuse to separate and work against the Holy Father and Church.
Benedicat Deus
M
Mike30
Guest
So the plan of salvation comes about through grace. OK where does the grace come from and how is it made available?
M
Mike30
Guest
I don’t havethe first clueas to what you are referring to.
T
Tunesmith
Guest
Yes I know. As I said before we agree on this point but the wording of the catechism can easily be interpreted otherwise. There’s a thread on CAF from Dec. 2010 that discusses this issue. "The plan of salvation includes Muslims? Is Allah the same God as Yaweh?"
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=522720
Here’s another.Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 841?!?
What is up with this??forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=317554
C
crazzeto
Guest
Yes, actually.I don’t havethe first clueas to what you are referring to.
M
Mike30
Guest
**
OK, since salvation comes through Jesus alone, what does one have to do to receive it? Anything? Nothing? Some specific thing? What?
The Church understands that we are all sinners in need of a savior (Rom 5:12-21). We are inheritors of original sin and all its consequences, and by actual sin we distance ourselves from God. We can’t save ourselves, but we don’t need to: Jesus Christ has paid the price for our sins. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation comes through Jesus alone (Acts 4:12), since he is the “one mediator between God and man” (1 Tm 2:5-6)… **
OK, since salvation comes through Jesus alone, what does one have to do to receive it? Anything? Nothing? Some specific thing? What?
T
Tunesmith
Guest
You know this whole Vatican II thing is very 60’s man. For those who believe everything in it is infallible, to them it’s infallible. To those who don’t, it’s not infallible. If you can dig it, I can dig you. Peace
P
pnewton
Guest
There really isn’t the confusion in the Catholic Church that you keep making things out to be. For Catholics, we have believe we have the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the authority of Jesus within the Church. Sure, we will always have some dissent, just like the Baptists have Westboro Baptist, but the Church itself is very unified. The documents written in Vatican II were written of years by men quite familiar with the Council of Florence. This is not the apologetics forum. A person who is not Catholic is, of course, not going to see things as a Catholic. It is a classic case of an error in the beginning.
There are about half a dozen issues that keep coming up to prove infallibility false. The Council of Florence is one of those, though a little less common. It is also used by sedevacantist to undermine papal authority. The last two popes, have both said that Vatican II must be understood with continuity in Church tradition. To do this, one must first accept Church tradition. Otherwise, it is a fruitless task.
- Status