No longer a Roman Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter reen12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Perhaps not. But between Fr. Ambrose and I, I am the one who quoted from Catholic sources of dogmatic theology and Pope John Paul II’s catechism.
Click to expand...
Dear just,

Rather than repeat old material in this thread, do a search for original sin in this section of the Forum and you will find where Catholics have themselves posted the older teaching.
Do you know what these councils teach on original sin?
Click to expand...
Actually, yes.
I’m simply astonished as to why non-Catholics, Fr. Ambrose just being one of many, come to this forum and presume to tell Catholics what the Catholic Church teaches.
Click to expand...
I was invited here by a Catholic. I mainly try and stick to the Non Catholic Religions section although I have permission from the chief moderator to post in Moral Theology also. It seems to me that in this Non-Catholic Religions section, there is the opportunity for honest interaction between Catholics and non-Catholics. This is good for mutual understanding, good for dialogue.

Btw, there are Catholics on Orthodox forums too.
It’s ridiculous. If non-Catholoics would stick to telling us what their church believes, I will refrain from telling you what your Church teaches.
Click to expand...
There has been a whole mountain of misapprehension about my own faith expressed here. One person even has a whole thread on the Orthodox “doctrine” that the laity are infallible in Orthodoxy. No amount of talking by the Orthodox will convince him otherwise 😃
To do otherwise, in my view, is to be adversarial to the Catholic faith, which all political correctness aside, is the work of one force and it ain’t holy. 😉
Click to expand...
If our Churches are to be reunited, we have to engage in honest and basic discussions. Pope John Paul has said that we have moved from the ‘dialogue’ of love’ to the ‘dialogue of truth.’ The dialogue of love has been happening over the last 40 years and has helped to remove suspicions and incorrect understandings. The ‘dialogue of truth’ is only beginning and it will be, as the Pope has noted, more difficult than our previous dialogue. The Pope has also encouraged all the faithful to be active in this wherever it is possible.
Now, I have no problems when non-Catholics come here to ask questions, in an honest attempt to better understand Catholicism. And if there’s something they don’t quite understand, given something else they read elsewhere, and they’d like it clarified, that’s perfectly fine. But I think by now it’s obvious what the difference is between questions of a seeker and accusations of an antagonist. Fr. Ambrose shows no signs of being the former, and every sign of being the latter.
Click to expand...
In other sections of this forum, non-Catholics including myself should certainly sit back and listen and if they contribute it should not be in a contentious way. But in this Non-Catholics Religions section we have the opportunity for debate. This will help you hone up your apologetical skills. 🙂 But calling people “Satan” is not a skill, just a gratuitous insult 😦

One thought: to ask the Moderators to create a section specifically devoted to inter-church dialogue?
 
“There is NOONE who is righteous, NOONE who is wise or who worships God. ALL have turned away from God, they have ALL gone wrong, NOONE does what is right, not even ONE. Their words are full of deadly deceit, wicked lies roll off their tongues.” Rom3:10
Click to expand...
Noah? Abraham? Elijah? All are called righteous, right?

How about Caleb? Scripture says of Caleb: “he hath wholly followed the LORD” (Deut 1:36)

I think Paul meant no one is righteous apart from the grace of the Lord, otherwise you have some ‘splainin’ to do.

And Christ the King said this about some men, “He who hears you, hears me.”
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
When you prove your assertion, I will happily apologize. Which pope taught that the teaching on original sin according to the Council of Orange and the Council of Trent is no longer Catholic teaching? If you cannot, then you are the one who spreads falsehoods regarding the Holy Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Let’s get back to the specifics of this debate.

It began with Oat Soda writing:
Originally Posted by oat soda
it is absolutely true that those who die in a state of original sin are damned.
Click to expand...
and it was me who responded with:
This WAS the teaching of the Popes but not any longer. Get with the programme, Oat Soda
Click to expand...
If you are working on a Masters in Religious Studies, you do not need me to direct you to the pre-Vatican II papal and conciliar sources which teach what Oat Soda wrote: “it is absolutely true that those who die in a state of original sin are damned.”
 
There has been a whole mountain of misapprehension about my own faith expressed here. One person even has a whole thread on the Orthodox “doctrine” that the laity are infallible in Orthodoxy. No amount of talking by the Orthodox will convince him otherwise
Click to expand...
Yes, and I bet he sounded absurd to you, right? Why are you repeating his absurdity? Do you think it sounds less absurd for an Eastern Orthodox to tell us what Catholicism teaches?

As for a search of the forum, no thanks. If you really had proof, you would have linked to it.

I’ve already studied the matter. You are the one thrusting accusations without supporting it. In my view, you are merely waving your hands saying, “well the proof is elsewhere, trust me on this, some father such-and-such wrote something or other about it and so it must be true.” Sorry, but I’ve studied enough to know that pope have not contradicted the Council of Orange, Florence, or Trent on this matter.

Let me reiterate what the pope himself teaches on the matter, from his catechism: “The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).” (CCC 406).
 
Dave,

Oh my gosh, I had no *idea *that you are working on
a Master’s in Religious Studies.

reen12
 
Dave,

The point is we are all sinners with or without God. Why because “the carnal mind is enmity towards God” (Rom 8:7) All men are carnally minded. Yes Noah and Elijah and Moses and the pope too. That’s why we need a saviour. After we are saved God no longer holds our sins against us but we still continue in our carnal minded sinful ways because we are just men.
 
real,
Hey bud, there is NO sin. We are all going to heaven according to you. So sin has no meaning or consequence. We can do what we want and God will force us into heaven later. We don’t even need to repent or be sorry. We don’t need to love God or neighbor. We don’t need faith. We don’t even need Jesus or the cross. Why would Jesus bother to die for us if we are going to heaven anyway? So according to your man made philosophy Jesus wasn’t God and didn’t rise from the dead. I mean God would be stupid to go to all that trouble if we are all saved just by his fiat.
 
Oat Soda wrote: “it is absolutely true that those who die in a state of original sin are damned.”
Click to expand...
I say, AMEN Oat Soda, this is exactly what I was taught in my post-graduate studies. It would be odd that I was taught this if this is no longer Catholic doctrine.

According to the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-1445):
***the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds ***(D 693)
Click to expand...
No pope has taught otherwise, your claim notwithstanding.

Now, who departs in original sin? The Church hasn’t definitively pronounced upon that question. Certainly not all who die apart from sacramental baptism depart in original sin, according to the Church. The Church has always held that, although not normative, God can sanctify extra-sacramentally (eg. baptism by desire, baptism by blood). Is that limited only to adults? Well, not according to Cardinal Cajetan even prior to Trent. He taught that extra-sacramental baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism may be possible by vicarious baptism of desire. While this theology is not proved by Divine Revelation, neither is it contary to it, nor is it contrary to Catholic dogma, nor was this theology condemened as erroneous by the Catholic Church … ever.

In fact, Pope John Paul II, in a papal encyclical has asserted that aborted babies (not all babies, just aborted babies) are now “living in the Lord” (Evangelium Vitae, 99). As I see it, he has done nothing more than assert a Catholic theology that was freely asserted even before the Council of Trent (eg. Cardinal Cajetan).
 
Fr. Ambrose,

Now, I would appreciate it if you could tell me which pope contradicts the Council of Florence? When? Where? Which encyclical? I’m familiar with many but not all. Perhaps I’ve missed it.
 
40.png
therealgoodnews:
Dave,

The point is we are all sinners with or without God. Why because “the carnal mind is enmity towards God” (Rom 8:7) All men are carnally minded. Yes Noah and Elijah and Moses and the pope too. That’s why we need a saviour. After we are saved God no longer holds our sins against us but we still continue in our carnal minded sinful ways because we are just men.
Click to expand...
Actually, no. You implied that I ought not to listen to men. I showed where God the Son said to some men: "He who hears you, hears me." I believe based upon Scripture, those apostles appointed others to continue their teaching authority. Scripture supports this belief, as does Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox teaching. So it seems we are to listen to men AND to God, and your false dichotomy is disproved.

Peter was the chief apostle, according to Scripture, and as such the NT had a governmental contruct established by Jesus Christ having one chief minister among many ministers. Catholics have no reason to believe that this Christ-established hierarchical presidency ought to have changed after Peter’s death. Early Church history shows that it didn’t.

Read Hebrews 13:17 and tell me how that passage makes any sense if we are not to listen to and OBEY men.

I hold that both men and God are to be obeyed, especially the men ordained in apostolic succesion and who remain in union with the chair of Peter.
 
Maureen,

I am truly sorry you no longer consider yourself Catholic and even more sorry you follow the path of others who look for those who are not Catholic to explain Catholic teachings.

It is like asking the grasshopper to explain why the ant stores food. You get the answer from the grasshoppers view. Why not just ask and believe the ant?

God Bless and keep you,
Maria
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
The Church has always held that, although not normative, God can sanctify extra-sacramentally (eg. baptism by desire, baptism by blood). Is that limited only to adults? Well, not according to Cardinal Cajetan even prior to Trent. He taught that extra-sacramental baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism may be possible by vicarious baptism of desire.
Click to expand...
Thomas Aquinas disgrees… Aquinas insisted that Baptism must not be delayed for infants precisely because they did not have the possibility of any baptism of desire which is available to adults. Their only remedy to obtain eternal life is baptism and without it they are unsaved.

“In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism. On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above.”

Summa, Part 3, q.68
 
Fr. Ambrose,

Thank you, but I’m very aware that Cardinal Cajetan and St. Thomas Aquinas disagree. Yet, you made a claim about an anonymous pope, did you forget? As far as I can tell, the Angelic Doctor was never a pope.

Can you tell me which pope contradicts what the Council of Florence (and Oat Soda) stated, yes or no?
 
I can also quote places where protestants like to point that Augustine did not believe in the Real Presence of Christ. But the doctrine for him did develop. Taking one quote from a great Doctor of the Church does not make it Official church teaching and understanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top