Outside the "church"

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
frnate said:
Just to make sure we’re all on the same page, what is the true definition of ex cathedra, at least for the purpose of use in this thread. I’m not being a smart-aleck (this time :D)

Peace,
+N
Click to expand...
From New Advent:
Literally “from the chair”, a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff.

From Wikipedia:
Statements by a pope that exercise papal infallibility are referred to as solemn papal definitions or ex cathedra teachings. These should not be confused with teachings that are infallible because of a solemn definition by an ecumenical council, or with teachings that are infallible in virtue of being taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. For details on these other kinds of infallible teachings, see Infallibility of the Church.

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:
Code: 
1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)
 
The members of the Church are the members of the body of Christ.

As He was raised, all his members will be raised.

So outside of the Church (read Christ) there is no salvation.

Clear?
 
jpusateri said:
The members of the Church are the members of the body of Christ.

As He was raised, all his members will be raised.

So outside of the Church (read Christ) there is no salvation.

Clear?
Click to expand...
I understand what your saying, how does it not contradict my OP?
 
clmowry said:
This of course does not make the position that their is no salvation “outside the church” any less a Doctrine of the Catholic faith.

Chuck
Click to expand...
Indeed, it is an infallible dogma.
The Suprema haec sacra insisted again upon the fact that the declaration: “there is no salvation outside the Church” is an infallible statement which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach, and it qualified this statement as a dogma.
Click to expand...
 
myfavoritmartin said:
I understand what your saying, how does it not contradict my OP?
Click to expand...
Look at the dates in your OP. At the time that those statements were made, there was only the Catholic Church. There were no Lutherans, Presbyterians, or Methodists at the time. There were Donatists, Marcionists, and other groups that held heretical beliefs by anyone’s standards. Look 'em up. :eek:
 
Pixie_Dust said:
Look at the dates in your OP. At the time that those statements were made, there was only the Catholic Church. There were no Lutherans, Presbyterians, or Methodists at the time. There were Donatists, Marcionists, and other groups that held heretical beliefs by anyone’s standards. Look 'em up. :eek:
Click to expand...
Or the albingensians???
Whom are now integrated into the Methodist church I believe.
Or maybe that was the waldensians my memory fails me.
So really you are WRONG! in a sense their were methodists…
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Or the albingensians???
Whom are now integrated into the Methodist church I believe.
Or maybe that was the waldensians my memory fails me.
Click to expand...
Albigensians aka Cathartists - Held either a gnostic or dualist theology - “that the physical world was evil and created by Satan, who was taken to be identical with the God of the Old Testament; and that men underwent a series of reincarnations before reaching the pure realm of spirit, the presence of the God of Love described in the New Testament and his messenger Jesus.” They also “believed that the Old Testament God of Jews and Christians was an imposter, and His worship was a corrupt abomination infused by the failings of the material realm” (from Wiki) Hmmm, doesn’t sound very Methodist to me.

Actually it’s the Baptists who like to link themselves to the Waldensians because of their opposition to paedobaptism. (Methodists do practice paedobaptism) Apparently Seventh-Day Adventists also like to think they’re linked to the Waldensians. Ellen G White, the SDA founder, " believed that the Waldenses kept the seventh-day Sabbath, engaged in widespread missionary activity, and “planted the seeds of the Reformation” in Europe." (also from Wiki)
 
myfavoritmartin said:
HOW DOES THIS>>>

NOT CONTRADICT THIS>>>>>
Click to expand...
It is typical of the non-theological mind to immediately conclude there’s a contradiction and reversal when presented with an apparent contradiction. That’s because a one-level (flat) kind of logic is applied to a Divine Mystery that has many depths.

This sort of apparent contradiction can easily be brought up concerning Scripture itself in many examples (“The Father is greater than I", e.g,). The non-theologian also sees it in ecclesiastical pronouncements and different Fathers, and you give this example of the necessity of the Church for salvation. The difference, of course, is a development in understanding how the Church is necessary for salvation.

Note that the later text keeps an essential element of the earlier teaching, namely, that membership in the visible Church is necessary for salvation, because the Church is a necessary instrument by God’s choice in salvation (this is true also for Mary and with similar causality involved in salvation). It is your either/or one-level thinking that sees an absolute contradiction where there is rather a relative conclusion drawn from an obvious truth which is erroneous from one pov, but not from every pov.

Secondly, note the ordinary Magisterium involved, not the full Magisterium. And there are other statements from the ancient Church that could be brought forth to indicate a refraining from judgment or a leaving the matter in the hands of God Himself.

The way a theologian handles each statement is to seek the truth in each and then relate the truths. He does not just discard the first statement simply as wrong. Furthermore, he carefully considers the actual context of the earlier statement as he does with the later one.

The difference between the papal statements of earlier ages and our time is in applying this revealed Truth on the necessity of the Church for salvation regarding those not in the visible Church. If you now go to John Paul II’s teaching you see that he maintained that the visible Church is necessary for salvation, but that since it is obviously not the fault of many millions that they have not adequately been evangelized they can not be blamed for culpable ignorance (but inculpable ignorance) and that since God gives sufficient grace to be saved to all, all have the chance to be saved through sufficient grace which is mysteriously in Christ, therefore in the Church in some way.
 
Pixie_Dust said:
From New Advent:
Literally “from the chair”, a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff.

From Wikipedia:
Statements by a pope that exercise papal infallibility are referred to as solemn papal definitions or ex cathedra teachings. These should not be confused with teachings that are infallible because of a solemn definition by an ecumenical council, or with teachings that are infallible in virtue of being taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. For details on these other kinds of infallible teachings, see Infallibility of the Church.

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:
Code: 
1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)
Click to expand...
Wonderful, thank you. In light of your reply, how is this:
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, in the bull, Unam Sanctam, 1302)
Click to expand...
not a doctrine that must be held by the whole Church? Especially since it is from a Bull rather than an Encyclical.

Peace,
+N
 
Basically, one absolutely MUST be a member of the Church to be saved–the Church that is subject to the Roman Pontiff. But, there are two possible ways to be united to the Church–normatively, through Baptism and profession of faith. On the other hand, it is possible for those who lack one of these through no fault of their own to be united by an explicit or implicit desire. An implicit desire would be found in perfect love for God, perfect contrition for sin, and a firm resolve to believe all He has revealed and do all He commands.

Willful and obstinate schism, heresy, or apostacy separates one from the Church.
 
Originally Posted by myfavoritmartin
Being a protestant I am considered a heretic by canon law!
Click to expand...
No you’re not. Well, maybe you are. Nobody can say for sure but you and God.

Quote:
…furthermore…
I am not subject to the Roman Pontiff!
Click to expand...
Yes you are. You’re just a disobedient, rebellious subject.
Click to expand...

I am not subject to the pope because I do not belong to the roman catholic church. The pope is no more important to God than any other human being. I belong to Jesus, which makes me part of HIS CHURCH.
 
NonDenom said:
I am not subject to the pope because I do not belong to the roman catholic church. The pope is no more important to God than any other human being. I belong to Jesus, which makes me part of HIS CHURCH.
Click to expand...
“HIS CHURCH” was built upon Peter, the first Bishop of Rome. (Matt 16:18) Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. He didn’t give them to everyone. If you read Isaiah 22 you’ll see how important the Key Holder is. There’s a passage in Isaiah 22 that sounds suspiciously like a passage in Matthew 16. :cool:
 
frnate said:
I kept waiting for the other “Siamese-twin” to show up. It is virtually impossible not to end up debating both Papal Infallibility and Supremacy together whenever either subject pops up.

I think I’ll start a fresh thread and see if it goes any where.

Peace,
+N
Click to expand...
It all boils down to Authority. Funny how all Christians accept the authority of the RCC to determine the canon of the NT - we all have the same 27 books - but reject the authority of the RCC for everything else pertaining to matters of faith and morals.
 
Pixie_Dust said:
It all boils down to Authority. Funny how all Christians accept the authority of the RCC to determine the canon of the NT - we all have the same 27 books - but reject the authority of the RCC for everything else pertaining to matters of faith and morals.
Click to expand...
Thats because the New Testament wasn’t written by the catholic church, the ccc was written long after the God inspired books that make up the Bible were written.
 
NonDenom said:
Thats because the New Testament wasn’t written by the catholic church, the ccc was written long after the God inspired books that make up the Bible were written.
Click to expand...
This would be a good read for you.

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton

The Gospels are Historical

The very first way to transmit the faith was through Tradition passed orally. Then the Gospels began to be written. The Bible is a gift from the Catholic Church.

Jesus did not start many religions. He started only one.
 
NonDenom said:
I am not subject to the pope because I do not belong to the roman catholic church. The pope is no more important to God than any other human being. I belong to Jesus, which makes me part of HIS CHURCH.
Click to expand...
  1. Any validly baptized person is a Christian, and is a member of the Church. There is only ONE Church, one Body of Christ…Christ is the head and the Church He established is the body, and if you are validly baptized then you are a member of that body. We as Catholics believe that body to be the Catholic Church.
  2. Noone said the pope is “more important”, but the Body of Christ, which is a visible institution, has a visible leader…the Bishop of Rome, by virtue of his succession from St. Peter, who was given the keys to the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose.
  3. All validly baztized individuals belong to Jesus, and are a part of His Church (i.e. the one he established). “His Church” just so happens to be the Catholic Church.
If you’re baptized you’re a member, you’re just not consciously aligned with it (yet). Hopefully, you will be in the next lifetime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top