Pre-Vatican 2 and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus...

[clem456]

It’s not a matter of what I want to believe, it’s what I have to believe.
All I’m saying is that God gave us rules and we have follow them. People of good will who really care about the things of God will be led by Him to seek the truth.

Yes but,
just for pastoral purposes, you may want to consider that your belief is not in line with the Church.
As we are discussing salvation through the Church,
and you seem to know that obedience to the Church is necessary for one who recognizes the Church, believing against the Church would not be a good thing.

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

Yes but,
just for pastoral purposes, you may want to consider that your belief is not in line with the Church.
As we are discussing salvation through the Church,
and you seem to know that obedience to the Church is necessary for one who recognizes the Church, believing against the Church would not be a good thing.

I believe the dogma how it was once declared and am not assigning a different meaning to it like many seem to do. To me it seems so cut and dry, if you are not inside the Church you cannot be saved. That seems to be a great way to convert people. If someone is truly of good will, they will definitely convert if they believe they cannot be saved otherwise.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chap. 4, Canon 3:
“If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”

 

[OraLabora]

Please use specifics and explain how I am erroneously interpreting these dogmas.

See post no. 68. Somebody presumably higher on the pay scale than you seems to interpret it differently (I’m referring to the quote from the Baltimore Catechism which predates Vatican II by a couple of decades and presumably has an imprimatur and nihil obstat).

What makes you think you’re more qualified than the authors/editors of the Baltimore Catechism to interpret ancient papal texts written in a vastly different era in a vastly different context?

Note that the Catechism, not the old papal texts, is the official instrument for the faith formation of the laity. Are you suggesting they the Catechism is trying to willfully mislead Catholics? Or do you just think you know better than its authors?

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

**This discussion is going nowhere and it is not enlightening anyone who is looking at the Catholic Church from the outside. For a proper understanding of how the Church understands this particular teaching please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Please do not reopen this discussion unless it’s to refer people to the proper sources in the CCC.**
**
THREAD CLOSED.**