No Salvation Outside The Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The correct translation is thou shalt not MURDER – much different from killing.
 
Sir_Knight said:
The correct translation is thou shalt not MURDER – much different from killing.
Click to expand...
Even so, we still have the same need to correctly interpret. For example, what kinds of situations constitute murder, as opposed to justifiable homicide, such as delf-defense against an unjust attack?
 
itinerant1 said:
You have just disproved your own contention.There is such a thing as justifiable homicide, and in some situations it is even morally obligatory. So, my answer is the same; statements should not always be taken at face value, that is, if one wants to have some kind of correct understanding. The example of “Thou shalt not kill” is an excellent example of the need to interpret within the context. The context is the Torah. QED
Click to expand...
There are cases where it is morally obligatory to end another person’s life?

Catholic moral theology would *excuse *killing in self-defense (i.e., a person would not be culpable for the death of someone they killed in self-defense)-- but death was not the intent (and to the degree that it was, such a person would be culpale), protection of those being harmed/stopping the attacker is the intent.
 
Are you still refusing to answer the questions regarding dogma that I asked for clarification?
 
AnneElliot said:
itinterant, you have made it quite clear multiple times throughout this thread what you think of my intelligence and comprehension. No need to dwell on it, just pray that God grants me some smarts. 😉

… It’s rather hard to have a discussion when you don’t answer questions. You say I have misconstrued your earlier post(s). Ok, I apologize for not understanding, so clarify your meaning for me… this is what I was trying to do in asking you to restate your position-- so that I don’t “misconstrue” the meaning of your post(s) again.

Taking a statement at face value is not superficial… let me give you another example, more serious than yummy candy. The fifth commandment is “Thou Shall Not Kill”. Can I take that at face value, or do I need to interpret it so that it says ‘sometimes it’s okay to kill’?

Can you answer the following questions for me (so that I don’t misconstrue what you’ve said)?
  1. Do dogmas need interpretation? If yes, by whom?
Click to expand...
Yes. By all who encounter them whether in writing or spoken word. Words are meaningless unless interpreted.
  1. Are dogmas “truths fallen from heaven”?
Click to expand...
No. Dogmas are the Church’s explanation of the Truth as revealed to the Church by God. This revelation may have occurred during OT times, by direct teaching of the disciples by Jesus or in inspirations given to the Apostles after the Resurrection.
Dogmas didn’t just fall from heaven.
 
AnneElliot said:
There are cases where it is morally obligatory to end another person’s life?

Catholic moral theology would *excuse *killing in self-defense (i.e., a person would not be culpable for the death of someone they killed in self-defense)-- but death was not the intent (and to the degree that it was, such a person would be culpale), protection of those being harmed/stopping the attacker is the intent.
Click to expand...
In regard to personal defense, the use of lethal force when required to stop an unjust attack is morally permissible. Personal self-defense in such situations generally remains optional. That is, one need not exercise his right to self-defense. He may exercise the option of total pacifism in regard to his person.

However, the situation is different when it involves others. For example, a parent would be morally obligated to use lethal force, if required, to protect her children from an attacker. Again, defensive force is this kind of situation is morally obligatory on the parent.
 
itinerant1 said:
In regard to personal defense, the use of lethal force when required to stop an unjust attack is morally permissible. Personal self-defense in such situations generally remains optional. That is, one need not exercise his right to self-defense. He may exercise the option of total pacifism in regard to his person.

However, the situation is different when it involves others. For example, a parent would be morally obligated to use lethal force, if required, to protect her children from an attacker. Again, defensive force is this kind of situation is morally obligatory on the parent.
Click to expand...
The parent is not morally obliged to try to kill the aggressor-- to stop them, yes a parent is morally obliged to protect their offspring, and if they use lethal force/deal a lethal blow they may not be held culpable… but no one is ever required (/morally obligated) to kill another person. The intention is not the death of the aggressor, but the protection of life being attacked.

The CCC even quotes St. Thomas Aquinas saying, “If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful…”. The fifth commandment is absolute (as all the commandments are), there is never a situation wherein we ought to take the life of another. Are there situations in which we might not be held culpable for taking the life of another? Yes… in legitimate defense. But never is anyone morally obligated to kill a person.

The fifth commandment always means “Thou Shall Not Kill”. To say otherwise opens the door to Relativism.
 
davidv said:
Yes. By all who encounter them whether in writing or spoken word. Words are meaningless unless interpreted.
Click to expand...
I meant, who gives the *authoritative *interpretation? Would you like to revise your response?
 
davidv said:
The Church is the authoritative interpreter of dogma.
My answer stands.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the Church interprets dogma and then everyone else further interprets the Church’s interpretation? (Since, you said previously that dogma must be interpreted by all who encounter them, and that this response still stands?)
 
AnneElliot said:
Are you saying the Church interprets dogma and then everyone else further interprets the Church’s interpretation? (Since, you said previously that dogma must be interpreted by all who encounter them, and that this response still stands?)
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe that is I am saying. Since the Church is the author of the dogma, her interpretion is the correct and complete one. Since individuals do not have full knowledge of the dogma, their interpretation can be wrong or incomplete. That is why we submit to the Church.
 
AnneElliot said:
The parent is not morally obliged to try to kill the aggressor-- to stop them, yes a parent is morally obliged to protect their offspring, and if they use lethal force/deal a lethal blow they may not be held culpable… but no one is ever required (/morally obligated) to kill another person. The intention is not the death of the aggressor, but the protection of life being attacked.

The CCC even quotes St. Thomas Aquinas saying, “If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful…”. The fifth commandment is absolute (as all the commandments are), there is never a situation wherein we ought to take the life of another. Are there situations in which we might not be held culpable for taking the life of another? Yes… in legitimate defense. But never is anyone morally obligated to kill a person.

The fifth commandment always means “Thou Shall Not Kill”. To say otherwise opens the door to Relativism.
Click to expand...
Good grief! You seem rather confused about what I said. I mentioned lethal force, “if necessary”. “If necessary” is the key qualifier to the statement, a qualifier, which you ignored. That ommission makes your response a strawman fallacy.

“If necessary” means that the minimal about of force required to stop the aggressor, in the hypothetical circumstance, is lethal force. Less force, according to the example would not suffice to protect.

You agree that “parent is morally obliged to protect their offspring.” So, in my particular example, only lethal force would suffice to fullfil that obligation. Granted in other situations, lethal force may not be necessary. Only use the minimum amount of force necessary is the rule. Sometimes, the very sound of a screaming mother in a fit and rage is enough to frighten away a male aggressor. 😃 Isn’t that right, guys?

You have used the moral analysis of the act, i.e. “The intention is not the death of the aggressor, but the protection of life being attacked” to draw your conclusion: “The fifth commandment always means “Thou Shall Not Kill”. To say otherwise opens the door to Relativism.” That is an obvious non-sequitur.

You have done an end-run around the original point of my earlier post that says the commandment requires a proper interpretation, which is to forbid murder, but that not all killing is murder, since there are cases of justifiable homicide in which lethal force is required for personal self-defense, defense of the community in “just war” as Aquinas teaches, and obviously adequate law enforcement requires the occasional use of lethal force, plus the Church has throughout the ages acknowledged the legitimacy of capital punishment. Furthermore, the Old Testament prescribes capital punishment for certain crimes, and so on.

How you got so far off-track on this matter, I have no idea. Once again, “Thou shalt not kill” cannot be taken superficially or at face value to mean any killing whatsoever. The Church has never endorsed total pacifism, only relative pacifism. The commandment needs to be interpreted in the proper context of the OT, NT, and Church teaching on the natural moral law. Period.
 
AnneElliot said:
I’ve answered these questions (/similar ones) previously…

Baptism of desire is a theory. It is not something that we can know.

I cannot judge the soul of another (thankfully, that’s not my job). God grants (and has granted, and will grant) every person the grace(s) s/he needs to find eternal life, even if such a grace might require a miracle. Saints have bi-located in order to preach the Gospel, Saints have raised the dead solely that they might receive the sacrament of Baptism. I have no doubt that since He has done it in the past, He will not hesitate do it again if necessary.
Click to expand...
And what of Dismas, you know the Good Thief whom Jesus promised would be with Him in paradise? He did not receive water baptism and He wasn’t martyred either. No saint bilocated to preach the Gospel to him and no one raised him from the dead either. According to Feeney he was condemned but Jesus disagrees with Feeney. WOW!!! There’s a pic 'em for you! Who to believe, Jesus or Feeney?
 
inkaneer said:
And what of Dismas, you know the Good Thief whom Jesus promised would be with Him in paradise? He did not receive water baptism and He wasn’t martyred either. No saint bilocated to preach the Gospel to him and no one raised him from the dead either. According to Feeney he was condemned but Jesus disagrees with Feeney. WOW!!! There’s a pic 'em for you! Who to believe, Jesus or Feeney?
Click to expand...
Dismas died before the Resurrection of Jesus, thus, He died under the Old Law and not the New Law.
 
itinerant,

You missed the point. The point is that, even if lethal force is used, the intention matters. Killing is wrong, but a parent who uses lethal force to protect their child is not culpable of sinning against the fifth commandment. There’s a difference. Do you agree?
 
DavidV,

Since itinerant refuses to answer the question I will respond as I’d intended if he meant to disregard dogmas as “truths fallen from heaven” (which you above stated was not true of dogmas).

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm
Pope Pius X, Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists:
“22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.”

Dogma is, by nature, a definition. It IS the authoritative/official interpretation of the Church regarding doctrine.
“And as dogmatic definitions are but the authentic interpretation and declaration of the meaning of Divine revelation…”
newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm
 
Anne,

Without a doubt, if we had to work with the number of ‘red herrings’ you have laid across this thread, we would a fishing license!! :rolleyes: You have left this topic long ago - and I can only conclude is in the curious effort to protect Feeney from further criticism for his heresy! :eek:

Please, return to the thread. You are obviously having major problems with it - and just haven’t gotten arround to the length quite of paragraph #16 for L.G. the deflates your position… or, at least the ones where you appear to uphold Feeney’s heresy (claiming he was ‘only’ excommunicated for failing to go to Rome…:rolleyes:) You know… if had gone and actually presented his ideas - and received the correction he needed - you would not have this phantom to defend. As it is … well… you are (to use another fish analogy) ‘floundering around’ awash in a sea of confusion and quite willing to misread other-wise clearly written posts so you bite on other posters. If you look back at your previous posts, I think you will see that your arguments have been netted out - and there is precious little worth sorting through.

God bless
AnneElliot said:
itinerant,

You missed the point. The point is that, even if lethal force is used, the intention matters. Killing is wrong, but a parent who uses lethal force to protect their child is not culpable of sinning against the fifth commandment. There’s a difference. Do you agree?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top