R.C ecclesiology and soterology contradict

[East_Anglican]

1,The present Pope has declared that the Roman Catholic Church is The One True Church.

2, Vatican III states that people of other ‘denominations’ are saved.

This is contradictory.

As The Bible says that Jesus died for The Church, somebody can’t be saved through Christ’s sacrifice without being in it. We can’t have the bridegroom without the bride.

The Bible says “Husbands love your wives as Jesus loved the church and laid himself up for her.” and The Bible shows that Christ and The Church are one. To be saved you need Christ and as Christ and The Church are one you can’t have him without The church. Therefore irtt is impossiible for Christ to save people without bringing them into his Church.

In light of this, if The Roman Catholic Church is the one true church and other people are saved who are not in it, then Roman Catholic ecclesiology and soterology are up the creek.

Please explain.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Is it really contradictory? Given that we can trace all of those denominations back into the past when they were united with us and us with them? A parent can disown a child but does that obliterate the fact that a parent had a child? A child can reject a parent but does that obliterate the fact that the parent brought the child into the world?

 

[Contarini]

1,The present Pope has declared that the Roman Catholic Church is The One True Church.

No. The Vatican last summer reaffirmed the longstanding teaching that the fullness of the Church subsists within the Roman Communion.

2, Vatican III states that people of other ‘denominations’ are saved.

No, it says that means of grace and salvation exist in these other churches and “ecclesial communities.”

As The Bible says that Jesus died for The Church, somebody can’t be saved through Christ’s sacrifice without being in it. We can’t have the bridegroom without the bride.

The answer is fairly simple. The Roman Communion teaches that the rest of us are imperfectly but really united to the One True Church through baptism, and have other elements of the Church which have saving value.

The question of how people who are not baptized can be saved is a much more difficult one. Your view would imply that all those outside the visible boundaries of the Church are damned. Is this what you believe? How would you define those boundaries? Baptism? Belief in the Trinity?

Edwin

 

[CatsAndDogs]

1,The present Pope has declared that the Roman Catholic Church is The One True Church.

2, Vatican III states that people of other ‘denominations’ are saved.

This is contradictory.

As The Bible says that Jesus died for The Church, somebody can’t be saved through Christ’s sacrifice without being in it. We can’t have the bridegroom without the bride.

The Bible says “Husbands love your wives as Jesus loved the church and laid himself up for her.” and The Bible shows that Christ and The Church are one. To be saved you need Christ and as Christ and The Church are one you can’t have him without The church. Therefore irtt is impossiible for Christ to save people without bringing them into his Church.

In light of this, if The Roman Catholic Church is the one true church and other people are saved who are not in it, then Roman Catholic ecclesiology and soterology are up the creek.

Please explain.

Firstly, ----- Vatican III ?!

Secondly, no one is “saved”, other than the saints in heaven, but only “savable”. To be “saved” is the end result of a life, not a state within it.

Thirdly, those in the Church who are not in “full communion” with her are fully “savable”, just like those IN full communion with her, but they will probably have a harder time in doing what needs doing to finally be “saved”.

There is one religion, which is one Church, which contains all other “religions” (aka denominations and even non-Christian “religions”) in as much as they are congruent with the Church (Catholic), and this “containing” singular (true) religion is called the Universal Church, aka Catholic.

 

[manualman]

They had another council and I didn’t even notice?? How long DID I sleep? What year is it?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

They had another council and I didn’t even notice?? How long DID I sleep? What year is it?

Don’tcha HATE it when that happens!

 

[dosdog]

a Christian community born out of the Protestant Reformation cannot be called “church” in the way Catholic theology defines the term.The text said the Orthodox churches, although separated from the Catholic Church, have preserved apostolic succession, the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist. Nevertheless, they “lack something in their condition as particular churches” because they are not in union with the pope.The Protestant communities, however, are not churches because they do not have apostolic succession – the unbroken succession of bishops going back to St. Peter, it said.

The new Vatican document, he said, is looking at the term in a “strictly theological” way, explaining that if the Catholic Church believes apostolic succession and valid sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, are essential aspects of the church established by Christ it cannot recognize as “church” those communities who do not have them.

Bishop Koch also said the document and reactions to it underline a clear difference in the Catholic and Orthodox ecumenical goal and the ecumenical goal of the Protestants.The Catholic and Orthodox churches, he said, aspire to full, visible unity, while the Protestant communities work for mutual recognition of the multiplicity and diversity of churches, “even with their possible contradictions.”
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703953.htm

 

[Genesis315]

1,The present Pope has declared that the Roman Catholic Church is The One True Church.

2, Vatican II states that people of other ‘denominations’ are saved.

This is contradictory.

The Catholic Church is the one true Church–and apart from the Body, one withers and dies. But, it is our Baptism that unites us to the Church and our unity is maintained by faith. Thus, we break unity by apostacy, schism, or heresy–but we must be guilty of it. Some Baptize person who is in good faith, while not being explicitly Catholic, may be united to the Body and draw life from it. They are not part of the full, visible unity of the Body, but are united at least in some way. This has been said in many different ways (before and after the Second Vatican Council) including being united to the soul of the Church or being in partial communion.

The point is, anyone who is saved draws their salvation from the Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church. And they do so from the points of unity they have with her–because those elements belong to the Catholic Church alone. Such a person therefore is not drawing salvation from a false denomination, but from the Catholic Church (ie, the Body of Christ which receives salvation from its Head, Jesus).

 

[Genesis315]

No. The Vatican last summer reaffirmed the longstanding teaching that the fullness of the Church subsists within the Roman Communion.

Not so. The CDF has said on multiple occasions that there is not multiple subsistences or subsistence outside the Catholic Church. What is said is that the Church may be “operative” in those other communities–but this is not the same as subsistence.

No, it says that means of grace and salvation exist in these other churches and “ecclesial communities.”

And this is true inasmuch as they contain elements of the true Church that belong to the Catholic Church and impel towards Catholic unity. They are not salvific in and of themselves.

The answer is fairly simple. The Roman Communion teaches that the rest of us are imperfectly but really united to the One True Church through baptism, and have other elements of the Church which have saving value.

Right

 

[Steven_John]

And this is true inasmuch as they contain elements of the true Church that belong to the Catholic Church and impel towards Catholic unity. They are not salvific in and of themselves.

Do you mean Catholic unity or catholic unity.

 

[FightingFat]

I learnt a while ago now that if something appears to be contradictory about Church teaching, it’s because you don’t understand it, not because it is.

 

[Steven_John]

I learnt a while ago now that if something appears to be contradictory about Church teaching, it’s because you don’t understand it, not because it is.

This can be true at times, for me at least.
It is also true at time for and between religions.

 

[Contarini]

Not so. The CDF has said on multiple occasions that there is not multiple subsistences or subsistence outside the Catholic Church. What is said is that the Church may be “operative” in those other communities–but this is not the same as subsistence.

How do you think that differs from what I said? Perhaps my use of the phrase “fullness of the faith” may have confused you. As I understand the technical term “subsists,” it necessarily refers to the fullness of the thing of which it speaks. I used the phrase “fullness of the faith” because the word “subsists” is so confusing for most English-speakers.

Edwin

 

[East_Anglican]

So let me get this. The R.C church is not the one true church but The True Church in its fullness while others have aspects of the true church?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

So let me get this. The R.C church is not the one true church but The True Church in its fullness while others have aspects of the true church?

By jove, I think he’s got it!

…although, I’m not sure of any contradiction between the first clause and the second clause. Could you explain the distinction between the clauses, please?

Thanks!

 

[East_Anglican]

By jove, I think he’s got it!

…although, I’m not sure of any contradiction between the first clause and the second clause. Could you explain the distinction between the clauses, please?

Thanks!

It’s the word ‘fullness’

The Bible says that Jesus died for The Church, whioch is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

If the R.C church is not the one true church but in its fullness while others have aspects of the true church, then others are not the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. If they are not then they can’t be part of The Church at all.

Or am I over complicating it?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

It’s the word ‘fullness’

The Bible says that Jesus died for The Church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

If the R.C church is not the one true church but in its fullness while others have aspects of the true church, then others are not the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. If they are not then they can’t be part of The Church at all.

Or am I over complicating it?

“The Fullness” means “The Most Available Possible”, in this context.

Much like Mother Mary had (has!) the “fullness” of grace ("…full of grace…").

See: Doctrinal Development

Just as one person may be aware, due to better education or talent, of more in an area of knowledge than another, one GROUP may be more aware than another. This also applies to religious knowledge (and authority as well).

The Church IS the one true Church, with the fullness of the deposit of faith (scripture/tradition/magisterium), while those who use only a sub-set of the full deposit of the faith have that TRUE sub-set, as far as they don’t contradict it elsewhere and use/understand it in conformance with the Church’s understanding, and are “in communion” (within the Body of Christ) with the Church in as much as they conform with the Church.

All Christians are a part of the Church due to their baptism, at least.

All Humans are a part of the Church due to their possessing an inherent knowledge of natural law, and whatever knowledge of revelation they may have been given.

What does, “…[if] others have aspects of the true church then others are not the fullness of him who fills everything in every way”, mean to you?

Why does that necessitate, “…If they are not then they can’t be part of The Church at all”?

 

[East_Anglican]

31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.

This means Christ and The Church aare one.

21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.

This means that The Church is one.

The one church is the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

As Christians we have it all.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.

This means Christ and The Church aare one.

21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.

This means that The Church is one.

The one church is the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

As Christians we have it all.

Yes, I agree with that. All Christians, and all those not culpable of the “sin against the Holy Spirit” have “it” all AVAILABLE to them from the One True Church.

The question is whether those people people CHOOSE to “take possession” of that which is available to them from The Church?

 

[Hesychios]

hello dosdog,

…The text said the Orthodox churches, although separated from the Catholic Church, have preserved apostolic succession, the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist. Nevertheless, they “lack something in their condition as particular churches” because they are not in union with the pope.

Orthodox would say the Bishop of Rome “lacks something” by not being in communion with Holy Orthodoxy. In all seriousness I think that this is a valid contention.

It is nice, of course, to be alive to witness this opening up of respect and validation from the Latin church toward the Orthodox but it is not really necessary. Orthodox have always insisted upon their own Catholicity, before during and after the schism. The fact is we have always known our own church has valid clergy and sacraments and did not need anyone to tell us, the Latin church seemed to have forgotten that about us for a few centuries . Now we have an abundant number of sceptics about each other’s churches on both sides of the divide and we need to fix that. I for one am willing to try.

…The Catholic and Orthodox churches, he said, aspire to full, visible unity, while the Protestant communities work for mutual recognition of the multiplicity and diversity of churches, “even with their possible contradictions.”
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703953.htm

I agree with this to some extent. However the Orthodox church has not put up any obstacles to unity with the Papacy, it has not introduced a single theological or ecclesiological thing to warrant our mutual separation. The changes have all come from the western church, and that is where the solution to this problem lies. We know that the church which sojourns at Rome has the flexibility and forthrightness to tackle this problem and so we watch with eagerness as the Holy Spirit works.

Orthodox do not make common cause with Protestantism, and where Protestant ideas about the Papacy converge with already held Orthodox understanding one can only hope that they have adopted Orthodox arguments because they are correct and for no other reason. We pray that the Protestant faithful and clergy return to their mother church and that their mother church return to Holy Orthodoxy.

I do not mean this as an offensive commentary, although I realize that some will take it that way. I mean it in the same spirit the Vatican and other RC have always sincerely held of their own public declarations, speaking the Truth with love.

Michael