J
Jerry_Marino
Guest
you take it for whatever or where ever you want to take it, the Holy Spirit is the believers ultimate teacher.
Protestants: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?
- Status
J
josie_L
Guest
No, it is the Catholic Church with the God-given authority to teach and embued with the Holy Spirit who is the pillar and foundation of Truth.
M
Matariel
Guest
I take it, you have no rebuttal of the previous posts…?
It says righht in the Bible that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the Truth”…
J
Jerry_Marino
Guest
so what is the purpose of the Holy Spirit since He works with the catholic church, what is truth?
since i seem to be on the wrong page here, tell me.
since i seem to be on the wrong page here, tell me.
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
M
MrS
Guest
As a protestant, I assume you do not believe the Doctrine of the Real Presence which only the Catholic Church declares and contains.
After 1500 years of the one and only Church enjoying that Truth, presented in John 6, and made crystal clear by St. Paul… reformers decided to reject this Truth. They walked away. And the result is “…you have no life in you…”
This is My Body had only one meaning… until the reformers chose their interpretations. Then, within 60 years of Luther’s rebellion, a book was published called 200 Interpretations of This Is My Body.
200!! Perhaps one of them is what you believe. Perhaps not.
You ask about being on the wrong page. I offer the pages of John 6 as the right page.
The Holy Spirit will not lead those who have walked away into all truth. They must, like the prodigal son, first return home in repentance and obedience.
One who is a believer is one who trusts fully in the Lord, regardless of their own understandings. Man does not think like God thinks.
.
C
christian1
Guest
Ok so this is my problem. When I was a catholic I was raised around highly devoted (to Mary mostly) people. Devotions were not an option, it was dogma. If you didn’t perform the devotions, you didn’t love God.
I had no problem performing the devotions. In fact, I loved it. Because all along, my desire was to please God.
Then I was introduced to some things in the Word of God that went contrary to what I had been observing and taught (perhaps mistaught)
So here I stand now at a crossroad. Alwaysforhim, I have not hidden the doctrines I have a problem with. I said many times the doctrine of Mary. I have already cleared up the matter that devotions to her are not necessary to be Catholic, and for this I am grateful to learn. But there is much more. I will state them all but I hate to be flooded with an avalanche of information. That’s why I picked one doctrine.
Let’s start with this question. Which of the following are church doctrine? Which are dogma? What is the difference if you don’t mind, between dogma and doctrine?
I’m sure you guys have answered these questions many times and so you probably won’t need much time.
I had no problem performing the devotions. In fact, I loved it. Because all along, my desire was to please God.
Then I was introduced to some things in the Word of God that went contrary to what I had been observing and taught (perhaps mistaught)
So here I stand now at a crossroad. Alwaysforhim, I have not hidden the doctrines I have a problem with. I said many times the doctrine of Mary. I have already cleared up the matter that devotions to her are not necessary to be Catholic, and for this I am grateful to learn. But there is much more. I will state them all but I hate to be flooded with an avalanche of information. That’s why I picked one doctrine.
Let’s start with this question. Which of the following are church doctrine? Which are dogma? What is the difference if you don’t mind, between dogma and doctrine?
I’m sure you guys have answered these questions many times and so you probably won’t need much time.
- Forbidding the priests to marry. (doctrine or dogma or neither)
- Calling the priest ‘father’ (doctrine or dogma, or neither)
- The doctrine for saints or dogma. (don’t know which it is if either)
- The doctrine or dogma of Mary’s sinless conception, ever virginity, and assumption.
- The forbidding of salvation to those who are not catholic.
- The baptism of infants
- Infallability of the pope on matters moral and faith.
S
SteveGC
Guest
I have tried to answer this for you ad nauseam, Jerry. It seems you don’t really want to know, but rather want to let us talk so you can respond with something like, “well, I just believe in Jesus alone, and you dont!” Your lack of a genuine attempt to learn is becoming ever transparent, I’m afraid.
So…once again…the Holy Spirit.
Sent to the Apostles specifically, who became the leaders of Christ’s Church, the pillar and foundation of Truth (which is Christ Himself). The Spirit manifests within these selected men to reveal all of which Christ intended for the world to know about Himself, about faith in Him, and about morality (obedience and sin).
Remains with them (the Apostles, and the perpetual, everlasting Church) for all time, protecting them from error in proclaiming false teaching about aforementioned faith and morals. Does NOT make anyone impeccable (without sin, or free from error in teaching something outside of faith and morals).
Comes to ALL of us through the Grace of baptism and conversion (faith). Lives within us (indwells) to strengthen our faith, guide us in our understanding of Church teaching, fortify our will to be obedient and fend off evil impulses (sin). We are consistently replenished with more gifts of the Holy Spirit (grace) as we participate with faithful disposition in the Eucharist (Christ literally coming into us), and Reconciliation (a turning from sin, and returning to God subsequent to grave disobedience).
Is with us in our faithful reading of Sacred Scripture to assist us in recognizing the principles and causes of the story of salvation as already revealed to The Church. In other words, we come to Sacred Scripture under the guidance and tutelage of The Church (with whom the Holy Spirit is connected).
Is NOT with us when we attempt to read Scripture outside of The Church, intent on trying to “search” for ourselves, and reveal the truths that are contained within it. Doing so is merely man’s interpretation, which is unprotected and fallible, and dangerous to the soul.
Is imperfectly with ALL outside The Church who believe and seek the Truth, assisting them in finding where it lies…leading them, NOT through the Bible, but rather, TO the ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (where the Truth resides). Our biases and clinging to anti-Catholic sentiment only serves to hinder the Holy Spirit’s attempt to lead us home.
Now, you may disagree, but do you see the purpose of the Holy Spirit from the perspective of the Catholic Church?
S
SteveGC
Guest
this is from an article from this website…
*doctrine and dogma. While sometimes used interchangeably they are not, strictly speaking, identical. Doctrine is Church teaching in all of its forms. It can refer to the whole of revelation or the deposit of faith. The word dogma comes from the Greek word meaning “to seem.” A dogma is a doctrine that has been expressly taught by the magisterium––either by conciliar or papal definition––to have been divinely revealed and contained in the Word of God, therefore requiring the belief of all Catholics.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “The Church’s magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes in a definitive way truths having a necessary connection with them” (88).
All dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is dogma.*
As for your list, I will leave that to others to help you…but I can tell you that #5 is neither, for it is a false presumption.
E
elvisman
Guest
That’s totally** false****. Either you are exaggerating or lying – or your parents taught you some pretty bizarre stuff.**
Such as? You keep making this claim but you **don’t **elaborate.
** - Discipline**
- Doctrine - Judges 17:10, Judges 18:19, Acts 7:2, 4:25, 8, 14, Romans 9:10, 1st Thess. 2:10-11, 1 Cor. 4:14–15, 1 Peter 5:13
**Please ****explain – **not sure what you mean
** – ****Dogma ( Rev 12:1-6), Luke 1:43/2 Sam. 6:9 **and all of the typology of theArk in the OT – Mary was the NEW Ark
This is neither – the Church doesn’t teach this.
**- Doctrine Col. 2:11–12 - **baptism replaces circumcision.
** – **Dogma (Luke 10:16, John 20:13-15)
Did this help?
C
christian1
Guest
To SteveGC part 1
I appreciate your help. Your statement about number five concerns me though. I have seen dogma or doctrine on it and it is pretty clear.
This is what I have found:
“Outside the Church there is no salvation, thus membership in the Church is necessary.” (Adam S. Miller, The Final Word, Tower of David Publications:Gaithersburg (1997), p. 16)
And it is ancient, going back at least as far as the Athanasian Creed (ca. 400 AD), wherein one might read:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. . . This is the Catholic faith’ unless everyone believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Denzinger 39, 30)
“Outside the Church nobody will be saved. (Extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur)” (Origen, In Jesu Nave hom. 3,5)
“Outside the Church nobody will be saved. (Extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur)” (Origen, In Jesu Nave hom. 3,5)
Cyprian, another third century Church Father, wrote something similar:
“Outside the Church there is no salvation.” (Salus extra ecclesiam non est)" (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73, To Iubaianus, n.21, Migne: Patrologiae Cursus completus. Series prima Latina, Parisiis; 1844)
The fourth Lateran Council declared, in 1215, that:
“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved . . .” (Lateran IV, The Catholic Faith, Chap. 1; Denzinger 430)
There no doubt are some Catholics who might reject the words of Origen, Cyprian and the Athanasian Creed as not be binding on the church in that they were not formally defined according to the criteria established by the First Vatican Council. I don’t know that ex post facto dogma are any more valid for the Roman Catholic Church than are ex post facto laws valid under the United States Constitution. Just to be certain, however, let us search for a definition of this dogma that would satisfy even the criteria of Vatican I. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII promulgated the Bull Unam Sanctam, wherein these defining words might be found:
“With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin . . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Denzinger 468-69)
Now there’s a definition of a dogma if ever I saw one. Here is another:
“It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)
Can there be any doubt that it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, defined by two ecumenical councils and confirmed by two reigning popes, that salvation is not possible outside the RCC? It is further specified that one cannot be saved, “even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ,” unless he is in the very bosom of the Catholic Church. What does it mean to “be in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church?” This points to another dogma; another link in a chain of such teachings built link by link, drawing from one another and supporting one another in an endless circle.
“The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and who are not separated from the unity of the confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of the Church. (Sent. Cert.)” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan Books and Publishers:Rockford (1974), p. 309; w/Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur)
Pius XII made it crystal clear as to just what it takes to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church:
“Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, and have not, to their misfortune, separated themselves from the structure of the Body, or for very serious sins have not been excluded by lawful authority.” (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, encyclical, June 29, 1943; Denzinger 2286)
A highly respected Catholic theologian and teacher explains what the Pope said in these terms:
“According to this declaration three conditions are to be demanded for membership of the Church: a) The valid reception of the Sacrament of Baptism. B) The profession of the true Faith. C) Participation in the Communion of the Church. By the fulfilment of these three conditions one subjects oneself to the threefold office of the Church, the sacerdotal office (Baptism), the teaching office (Confession of Faith), and the pastoral office (obedience to Church authority).” (Ludwig Ott, Op. Cit.)
As frosting on the cake, let us add the words of another pope, who declared it to be error to believe that;
“In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way toi eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation.” (Pius IX, “Syllabus,” or Collection of Modern Errors, Section III; Denzinger 1716)
I appreciate your help. Your statement about number five concerns me though. I have seen dogma or doctrine on it and it is pretty clear.
This is what I have found:
“Outside the Church there is no salvation, thus membership in the Church is necessary.” (Adam S. Miller, The Final Word, Tower of David Publications:Gaithersburg (1997), p. 16)
And it is ancient, going back at least as far as the Athanasian Creed (ca. 400 AD), wherein one might read:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. . . This is the Catholic faith’ unless everyone believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Denzinger 39, 30)
“Outside the Church nobody will be saved. (Extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur)” (Origen, In Jesu Nave hom. 3,5)
“Outside the Church nobody will be saved. (Extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur)” (Origen, In Jesu Nave hom. 3,5)
Cyprian, another third century Church Father, wrote something similar:
“Outside the Church there is no salvation.” (Salus extra ecclesiam non est)" (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73, To Iubaianus, n.21, Migne: Patrologiae Cursus completus. Series prima Latina, Parisiis; 1844)
The fourth Lateran Council declared, in 1215, that:
“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved . . .” (Lateran IV, The Catholic Faith, Chap. 1; Denzinger 430)
There no doubt are some Catholics who might reject the words of Origen, Cyprian and the Athanasian Creed as not be binding on the church in that they were not formally defined according to the criteria established by the First Vatican Council. I don’t know that ex post facto dogma are any more valid for the Roman Catholic Church than are ex post facto laws valid under the United States Constitution. Just to be certain, however, let us search for a definition of this dogma that would satisfy even the criteria of Vatican I. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII promulgated the Bull Unam Sanctam, wherein these defining words might be found:
“With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin . . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Denzinger 468-69)
Now there’s a definition of a dogma if ever I saw one. Here is another:
“It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)
Can there be any doubt that it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, defined by two ecumenical councils and confirmed by two reigning popes, that salvation is not possible outside the RCC? It is further specified that one cannot be saved, “even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ,” unless he is in the very bosom of the Catholic Church. What does it mean to “be in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church?” This points to another dogma; another link in a chain of such teachings built link by link, drawing from one another and supporting one another in an endless circle.
“The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and who are not separated from the unity of the confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of the Church. (Sent. Cert.)” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan Books and Publishers:Rockford (1974), p. 309; w/Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur)
Pius XII made it crystal clear as to just what it takes to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church:
“Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, and have not, to their misfortune, separated themselves from the structure of the Body, or for very serious sins have not been excluded by lawful authority.” (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, encyclical, June 29, 1943; Denzinger 2286)
A highly respected Catholic theologian and teacher explains what the Pope said in these terms:
“According to this declaration three conditions are to be demanded for membership of the Church: a) The valid reception of the Sacrament of Baptism. B) The profession of the true Faith. C) Participation in the Communion of the Church. By the fulfilment of these three conditions one subjects oneself to the threefold office of the Church, the sacerdotal office (Baptism), the teaching office (Confession of Faith), and the pastoral office (obedience to Church authority).” (Ludwig Ott, Op. Cit.)
As frosting on the cake, let us add the words of another pope, who declared it to be error to believe that;
“In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way toi eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation.” (Pius IX, “Syllabus,” or Collection of Modern Errors, Section III; Denzinger 1716)
C
christian1
Guest
To Steve Gc part 2
“We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ.” (Pius IX, “Syllabus,” or Collection of Modern Errors, Section III; Denzinger 1717)
One of the boasts of the Roman cult, a motto if you will, is that it is Semper Eadem, always the same. That this applies to dogma of the RCC was made clear by Pope Paul VI:
“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful–who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32)–he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.[42] For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, is as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal.” (Paul VI, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), November 21, 1964)
Another Romish theologian helps us to understand that dogma, once defined, are immutable. He then goes on to explain that when dogma change, it is not because they have been re-defined, but that they simply have been clarified. Classic RCC doublespeak.
“Dogmas, as divine truths revealed by God, are eternal and unchangeable. That is why a dogma can never be “re-defined.” Yet, in this work you will notice that most of these dogmas have been solemnly defined and/or pronounced more than once. These are not “re-definitions.” Rather, they are further definitions and/or clarifications which buttress aspects of a dogma that have come under some form of denial or attack. The content of these denials/attacks was often not anticipated in the preceding pronouncements. Hence, each further definition is a MORE PRECISE definition of the dogma. It is never the opposite. It is never an expansion or widening, and thus changing, of what the dogma holds. It is never an evolution as to the content and substance of a dogma. The reason this is so is, again, because dogmas are immutable. Truth cannot change.” (Adam S. Miller, Op. Cit., p. 3)
That’s the RCC’s position on dogmas. Dogmas, being divinely-revealed truth, are immutable. They cannot be changed because truth cannot change. They cannot be re-defined, only clarrified or made more precise. They can never be made to say something opposite to what they originally said. Keeping this in mind, look again at the words used by Pope Boniface VIII to define the necessity of membership in the RCC and submission to the pope for salvation:
“With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin . . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Denzinger 468-69)
And to this clear declaration of a dogma, add the clarifying definition of Pope Eugenius,
“It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life . . .and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)
Now let us turn our attention to the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, which informs catechumins that:
“Outside the Church there is no salvation.”
“We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ.” (Pius IX, “Syllabus,” or Collection of Modern Errors, Section III; Denzinger 1717)
One of the boasts of the Roman cult, a motto if you will, is that it is Semper Eadem, always the same. That this applies to dogma of the RCC was made clear by Pope Paul VI:
“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful–who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32)–he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.[42] For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, is as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal.” (Paul VI, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), November 21, 1964)
Another Romish theologian helps us to understand that dogma, once defined, are immutable. He then goes on to explain that when dogma change, it is not because they have been re-defined, but that they simply have been clarified. Classic RCC doublespeak.
“Dogmas, as divine truths revealed by God, are eternal and unchangeable. That is why a dogma can never be “re-defined.” Yet, in this work you will notice that most of these dogmas have been solemnly defined and/or pronounced more than once. These are not “re-definitions.” Rather, they are further definitions and/or clarifications which buttress aspects of a dogma that have come under some form of denial or attack. The content of these denials/attacks was often not anticipated in the preceding pronouncements. Hence, each further definition is a MORE PRECISE definition of the dogma. It is never the opposite. It is never an expansion or widening, and thus changing, of what the dogma holds. It is never an evolution as to the content and substance of a dogma. The reason this is so is, again, because dogmas are immutable. Truth cannot change.” (Adam S. Miller, Op. Cit., p. 3)
That’s the RCC’s position on dogmas. Dogmas, being divinely-revealed truth, are immutable. They cannot be changed because truth cannot change. They cannot be re-defined, only clarrified or made more precise. They can never be made to say something opposite to what they originally said. Keeping this in mind, look again at the words used by Pope Boniface VIII to define the necessity of membership in the RCC and submission to the pope for salvation:
“With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin . . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Denzinger 468-69)
And to this clear declaration of a dogma, add the clarifying definition of Pope Eugenius,
“It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life . . .and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)
Now let us turn our attention to the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, which informs catechumins that:
“Outside the Church there is no salvation.”
- "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body. . .
- "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
C
christian1
Guest
To Steve GC part 3
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc. - Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 244 w/Imprimi Potest of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)
O my! Looks as though the CCC has done a bit of clarification here. And it would appear that this clarification has so modified the dogma as pronounced by Boniface VIII and Eugenius as to now make it possible that people who have never even heard of Jesus Christ or the Roman Catholic Church might be saved. If I had not been told differently by Paul VI and Adam S. Miller, I would have thought this amounted to a reversal of the earlier defined dogma. Clearly, I do not understand how declaring that people outside the RCC who never heard of the RCC or Jesus Christ are not to be considered when accepting as a matter of faith that “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” Maybe I can find a more clear understanding by looking deeper into the CCC.
"1258. “The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of Blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.” (CCC, Op. Cit., p. 352)
Whoa! This seems to be another clarification that appears to run opposite to the earlier definition of the dogma, in particular the words of Pope Eugenius, who declared:
“. . .no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)
I know this was long, but it’s what I have to confront.
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc. - Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 244 w/Imprimi Potest of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)
O my! Looks as though the CCC has done a bit of clarification here. And it would appear that this clarification has so modified the dogma as pronounced by Boniface VIII and Eugenius as to now make it possible that people who have never even heard of Jesus Christ or the Roman Catholic Church might be saved. If I had not been told differently by Paul VI and Adam S. Miller, I would have thought this amounted to a reversal of the earlier defined dogma. Clearly, I do not understand how declaring that people outside the RCC who never heard of the RCC or Jesus Christ are not to be considered when accepting as a matter of faith that “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” Maybe I can find a more clear understanding by looking deeper into the CCC.
"1258. “The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of Blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.” (CCC, Op. Cit., p. 352)
Whoa! This seems to be another clarification that appears to run opposite to the earlier definition of the dogma, in particular the words of Pope Eugenius, who declared:
“. . .no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)
I know this was long, but it’s what I have to confront.
C
christian1
Guest
To all:
What am I to do with this?
All of the popes during the past thirty years have done their part to increase the influence of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church based completely on tradition rather than upon the Bible. In the August 28, 1975 issue of the official Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, Pope Paul VI, speaking of the ceremony celebrated the day before in St. Peter’s in honor of the Madonna at the Feast of the Assumption of Mary said, “Her venerated image, known as Salus Populi Romani’ was carried in procession from St. Mary Major’s as part of the Holy Year ceremonies, so that the overflow crowd of pilgrims, coming from all parts of the world, could see it and thus increase their devotion to her. In this way we should all be reminded of the meaning and practice of the cult of Mary, inseparable from the unique and central cult of Christ …Let us pray to her with humble, trusting and childlike faith.”
Did you know that the present pope, John Paul II, has dedicated himself completely to Mary? In 1985, during his visit to Vancouver, B.C., the special souvenir edition of B. C. Catholic carried a full I page color photo of the pope under the caption, Totus Tuus which, in Latin, means" all yours ."The following explanation was given, "When Karol Wojtyla was consecrated bishop of Cracow by Pius XII in 1958 he took, ‘Totus Tuus’ (all yours) as his motto, thus presenting himself to Mary. In his first Urbi et Orbi message immediately after being elected pope he said, “At this difficult hour, full of fear, we must turn our thoughts with filial devotion to the Virgin Mary who always lives in the midst of Christ and exists as his mother. We must repeat the words, Totus Tuus which 20 years ago were inscribed into our heart and soul.”’
Pope John Paul II has visited many of the major Shrines to Mary. He attributed his escape from death at the hands of a would-be assassin and the overthrow of communism in Eastern Europe to the intervention of Mary. Millions of Catholics are making pilgrimages to the various Marian shrines, seeking and often claiming miracles of healing and answers to their prayers to Mary. New apparitions of Mary and special messages from her are being claimed in various parts of the world. Yet, there is absolutely no Scriptural foundation for any of these beliefs or practices. Mary was indeed a virgin (pure sexually) so that she could fulfill the Old Testament prophecy that Christ would be born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14). She was a godly woman, but not sinless. As with all true believers in Christ, when Mary died, her soul and spirit went to heaven, but her body awaits the resurrection; she did not bodily ascend to heaven as did Jesus Christ. Nothing in Scripture indicates that prayers were ever offered to Mary nor that she was worshipped by anyone. Most of Roman Catholic teaching concerning Mary is based entirely on human tradition and contradicts the Bible, the Word of God.
What am I to do with this?
All of the popes during the past thirty years have done their part to increase the influence of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church based completely on tradition rather than upon the Bible. In the August 28, 1975 issue of the official Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, Pope Paul VI, speaking of the ceremony celebrated the day before in St. Peter’s in honor of the Madonna at the Feast of the Assumption of Mary said, “Her venerated image, known as Salus Populi Romani’ was carried in procession from St. Mary Major’s as part of the Holy Year ceremonies, so that the overflow crowd of pilgrims, coming from all parts of the world, could see it and thus increase their devotion to her. In this way we should all be reminded of the meaning and practice of the cult of Mary, inseparable from the unique and central cult of Christ …Let us pray to her with humble, trusting and childlike faith.”
Did you know that the present pope, John Paul II, has dedicated himself completely to Mary? In 1985, during his visit to Vancouver, B.C., the special souvenir edition of B. C. Catholic carried a full I page color photo of the pope under the caption, Totus Tuus which, in Latin, means" all yours ."The following explanation was given, "When Karol Wojtyla was consecrated bishop of Cracow by Pius XII in 1958 he took, ‘Totus Tuus’ (all yours) as his motto, thus presenting himself to Mary. In his first Urbi et Orbi message immediately after being elected pope he said, “At this difficult hour, full of fear, we must turn our thoughts with filial devotion to the Virgin Mary who always lives in the midst of Christ and exists as his mother. We must repeat the words, Totus Tuus which 20 years ago were inscribed into our heart and soul.”’
Pope John Paul II has visited many of the major Shrines to Mary. He attributed his escape from death at the hands of a would-be assassin and the overthrow of communism in Eastern Europe to the intervention of Mary. Millions of Catholics are making pilgrimages to the various Marian shrines, seeking and often claiming miracles of healing and answers to their prayers to Mary. New apparitions of Mary and special messages from her are being claimed in various parts of the world. Yet, there is absolutely no Scriptural foundation for any of these beliefs or practices. Mary was indeed a virgin (pure sexually) so that she could fulfill the Old Testament prophecy that Christ would be born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14). She was a godly woman, but not sinless. As with all true believers in Christ, when Mary died, her soul and spirit went to heaven, but her body awaits the resurrection; she did not bodily ascend to heaven as did Jesus Christ. Nothing in Scripture indicates that prayers were ever offered to Mary nor that she was worshipped by anyone. Most of Roman Catholic teaching concerning Mary is based entirely on human tradition and contradicts the Bible, the Word of God.
S
SteveGC
Guest
C
christian1
Guest
To whomever:
The Council of Trent declared: “The sacrifice (in the Mass) is identical with the sacrifice of the Cross, inasmuch as Jesus Christ is a priest and victim both. The only difference lies in the manner of the offering, which is bloody upon the cross and bloodless on our altars”; and, in Canon I stated: "Whosoever shall deny that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and consequently Christ entire, but shall affirm that he is present therein only in a sign and figure, or by his power, let him be accursed.,
But what does the Bible say concerning the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross? Hebrews 10:10-14, "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man [Jesus Christ], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God,- From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. "
You have to wonder why the catholic church has decided to change the Word of God that clearly says that it only took him to offer himself once for our sins. But the church offers his blood and body daily. Why the contradiciton of scriptures?
The Council of Trent declared: “The sacrifice (in the Mass) is identical with the sacrifice of the Cross, inasmuch as Jesus Christ is a priest and victim both. The only difference lies in the manner of the offering, which is bloody upon the cross and bloodless on our altars”; and, in Canon I stated: "Whosoever shall deny that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and consequently Christ entire, but shall affirm that he is present therein only in a sign and figure, or by his power, let him be accursed.,
But what does the Bible say concerning the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross? Hebrews 10:10-14, "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man [Jesus Christ], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God,- From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. "
You have to wonder why the catholic church has decided to change the Word of God that clearly says that it only took him to offer himself once for our sins. But the church offers his blood and body daily. Why the contradiciton of scriptures?
C
christian1
Guest
To SteveGc
I’ve managed to make it through the first one. There is ALOT in it that has nothing to do with Mary and I was hoping if there weren’t a more concise source that perhaps got to the points faster and more direct.
I did appreciate his thoroughness but truly, I don’t care to have to sit through his personal experiences and while I enjoy the surrounding truths about God and His Fatherhood, I was hoping to get to the issue of the doctrine of Mary without all the rest.
If you don’t know of any, I’ll have to press on and glean from the audio those evidences that I seek.
So far, a great deal has been attributed to Mary merely through the angel’s hello to her. Thus begins the foundation of an entire doctrine. I hope it gets better than this.
I’ve managed to make it through the first one. There is ALOT in it that has nothing to do with Mary and I was hoping if there weren’t a more concise source that perhaps got to the points faster and more direct.
I did appreciate his thoroughness but truly, I don’t care to have to sit through his personal experiences and while I enjoy the surrounding truths about God and His Fatherhood, I was hoping to get to the issue of the doctrine of Mary without all the rest.
If you don’t know of any, I’ll have to press on and glean from the audio those evidences that I seek.
So far, a great deal has been attributed to Mary merely through the angel’s hello to her. Thus begins the foundation of an entire doctrine. I hope it gets better than this.
S
SteveGC
Guest
No Salvation Outside The Church
JP II - All Salvation Comes Through Christ
Sacrifice Of The Mass
The Institution of The Mass
[Is The Mass a True Sacrifice?](Is the Mass a True Sacrifice?)
Mary and The Saints
I know you might prefer just a response here from us, but these “cut to the chase” about some of the issues you raise.
Thanks for attempting to listen to the series on Mary. It does get into the matter quite deeply, each part of the series is a half hour, and I know it’s tough to listen to “back story” before the meat of the issue. Perhaps you can keep them handy for sometime later down the road, IF you somehow become more open to the Catholic idea for Mary.
God Bless
JP II - All Salvation Comes Through Christ
Sacrifice Of The Mass
The Institution of The Mass
[Is The Mass a True Sacrifice?](Is the Mass a True Sacrifice?)
Mary and The Saints
I know you might prefer just a response here from us, but these “cut to the chase” about some of the issues you raise.
Thanks for attempting to listen to the series on Mary. It does get into the matter quite deeply, each part of the series is a half hour, and I know it’s tough to listen to “back story” before the meat of the issue. Perhaps you can keep them handy for sometime later down the road, IF you somehow become more open to the Catholic idea for Mary.
God Bless
C
christian1
Guest
To Steve GC
I do appreciate all your help.
I’ll be looking into those links you gave in a little bit. Thanks alot.
The guy on the audio mentioned that the greeting from the angel indicated some sort of indication of her elevation. I look up the scripture and do a check on the word ‘hail’
and only find it to mean the following. Am I missing something?
G5463
χαίρω
chairō
khah’ee-ro
A primary verb; to be full of “cheer”, that is, calmly happy or well off; impersonal especially as a salutation (on meeting or parting), be well: - farewell, be glad, God speed, greeting, hail, joy (-fully), rejoice.
I do appreciate all your help.
I’ll be looking into those links you gave in a little bit. Thanks alot.
The guy on the audio mentioned that the greeting from the angel indicated some sort of indication of her elevation. I look up the scripture and do a check on the word ‘hail’
and only find it to mean the following. Am I missing something?
G5463
χαίρω
chairō
khah’ee-ro
A primary verb; to be full of “cheer”, that is, calmly happy or well off; impersonal especially as a salutation (on meeting or parting), be well: - farewell, be glad, God speed, greeting, hail, joy (-fully), rejoice.
T
TobyLue
Guest
christian1 - I havent had a chance to go through the whole thread since it is pretty big but a couple of things caught my eye.
First of it you seem to have placed out a bait. Then when somone bit you proceeded to cut and paste tons of info. It is common courtesy if you are going to paste, to put a link or give credit to whoever wrote what you pasted. There is no way you could have written down all those thousands of bits in under a minute.
It’s not nice to take credit for something you didnt write. That is not very christianlike
Here is a bit of info from the Navarre Bible Commentary:
We know the names of the four evangelists through the testimony of Christian
tradition, which from the beginning unanimously attributed these four books
respectively to St Matthew, St Mark, St Luke and St John. In addition to Tradition
critical analysis of the literary features of the text and historical references in each
Gospel support the unanimous, pricise testimony of Tradition. (all emphasis mine)
So you see there is nothing in Catholic Teaching that will contradict Scripture. There are many things that are explicit and many that are implicit. But that’s the way the Holy Spirit wanted it. Also even in the Bible it is written that not all things Jesus taught were written down.
First of it you seem to have placed out a bait. Then when somone bit you proceeded to cut and paste tons of info. It is common courtesy if you are going to paste, to put a link or give credit to whoever wrote what you pasted. There is no way you could have written down all those thousands of bits in under a minute.
It’s not nice to take credit for something you didnt write. That is not very christianlike
This may come as a surprise to you but the whole bible if based on Christian Tradition. Jesus didnt write down anything (other than in the sand and nobody knows that it was). He never distributed KJV’s and told his disciples to go and distribute them. His great commission was “…go teach!”. Many of His disciples never wrote down a thing. However, they did go to many lands to “teach” what Jesus had taught them. Without Tradition we would not have the Bible. The books that were accepted as God’s word had to completely agree with what was taught through Tradition.
Here is a bit of info from the Navarre Bible Commentary:
We know the names of the four evangelists through the testimony of Christian
tradition, which from the beginning unanimously attributed these four books
respectively to St Matthew, St Mark, St Luke and St John. In addition to Tradition
critical analysis of the literary features of the text and historical references in each
Gospel support the unanimous, pricise testimony of Tradition. (all emphasis mine)
So you see there is nothing in Catholic Teaching that will contradict Scripture. There are many things that are explicit and many that are implicit. But that’s the way the Holy Spirit wanted it. Also even in the Bible it is written that not all things Jesus taught were written down.
- Status