S
Sir_Knight
Guest
The Church “firmly believes, professes, and proclaims”
- Status
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Then why would a pagan be held account for what he did not know as infallibly taught by Pope Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence in 1442 A.D.
Augustine would reply: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?” --. MIRARI VOS, the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832)
Chapter and verse, please.
John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).
Acts 8:36 – the eunuch recognizes the necessity of water for his baptism. Water and baptism are never separated in the Scriptures.
P
Pitcharan
Guest
Only Christ can say who or which church is in communion with Him. You have no right to say this, though it may be true and you may even experience the truth
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Of course I do. It is a matter of historical record.
J
JM3
Guest
Romans 2:14-15
J
JReducation
Guest
Wait a minute. There are two different things happening here. On the one hand, some people are assuming that certain statements were intended as infallible, which is not the case. The doctrine is infallible, the explanation of the doctrine can be clarified and restated by any pope. That’s what Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have done. To say that they are wrong is arrogrant, because it places the individual Catholic’s judgment over that of several popes who happen to agree on the explanation being given. The only way that one can legitimately say that their explanation is wrong is to have a council of bishops say so and this has not happened. The bishops have never questioned their explanation. Questions raised by individual bishops are just that, individual questions. They are entitled to ask questions as is anyone else. But no one is entitled to unilaterally say that their interpretation of the doctrine is wrong. The Church has processes and procedures for that purpose and these have never been invoked.
That being said, the poster said that the Catholic Church is the only Church that has a link to Jesus Christ. The wording is a little clunky, but it’s not far from the truth. The Catholic Church is the only Church that can trace its authority, origins and teachings directly to Jesus. The other Apostolic Church, such as the Orthodox Churches take their origin and teachings from Jesus, but not their teaching authority. They are missing one piece of the puzzle.
Because they are missing one piece, one must conclude that the fulness of truth resides ONLY in the Catholic Church. Other Churches have part of the truth. The Orthodox Churches certainly have all of the truth, but not the authority that comes with it, because they trace their origins to the Apostles who were in communion with Peter. Unfortunately, they broke communion with Peter.
That being said, they do have commnion with the Catholic Church in sacraments. Their sacraments a both valid and licit.
As for other faiths, Christian and non Christian faiths they have pieces of the truth. As Pope John Paul explained, Jesus Christ uses what they have to save the member of those faiths.
The docrine remains the same. Outside the Church there is no salvation. However, John Paul II explains that one can find pieces or shadows of the Church in other faiths. Salvation is not mediated through the errors that exist in those faiths, but through the Catholic elements found in those faiths. Therefore, salvation does in fact come to them through the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church chooses to acknowledge that they are in posession of parts of the Catholic faith, even when they do not know that they do. Without those Catholic truths there is no salvation, because salvation comes only through the Catholic Church.
Christ does not undermine his Church. He works through her. As Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict XVI have agreed on, in the past there were two obstacles in many of the Church’s commentaries. The first was a very human obstacle. There was a great deal of anger and hurt due to the conflicts between the Catholic Church and other faiths. These feelings influenced the wording used to explain EENS. The other issue was that there was a underdeveloped ecclesiology. The thinking of the past limitted the Church in time and space. The idea that the Church transcends the physcial and can reach out and offer her protection to those of other faiths never crossed anyone’s mind. Though the knew that the Church is as transcendent as her head, Jesus Christ, they never worded their ecclesiology this way. What the last two popes have done is to describe the body according to the attribute of the head. Because Christ is transcendent, because he wishes for all men to be saved, and because he will do whatever he can to save all men without limiting himself, the body (the Church) can reach out and envelop those who are not physically within her. She does this by acknowledging the good and truth that is Catholic, often found in other faiths, even when they do not know that what they believe is Catholic.
This does not change the ultimate fact. The fulness of truth subsides only in the Catholic Church. All others faiths, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and even pagans, have pieces of the truth. However, they have a moral duty to be faithful to that truth that they do know.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
chypmonk
Guest
so you agree that not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives?
P
Pitcharan
Guest
No one denies the fulness of truth contained in the CC or its link to Jesus Christ. But it is unfair to say that CC alone and no other even if it is true. Who can stop our Lord from revealing His truth to others?…That being said, the poster said that the Catholic Church is the only Church that has a link to Jesus Christ. The wording is a little clunky, but it’s not far from the truth. The Catholic Church is the only Church that can trace its authority, origins and teachings directly to Jesus. …
This does not change the ultimate fact. The fulness of truth subsides only in the Catholic Church. All others faiths, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and even pagans, have pieces of the truth. However, they have a moral duty to be faithful to that truth that they do know.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. (Mk 9:39-40)
S
Sirach2
Guest
Actually, the person making the comment was St. Peter, the one to whom Jesus gave the keys, remember? His words are to be understood as being more true than an isolated biblical commentary, unless that commentary expresses the mind of the Church.
It is true that the Church believes the baptisms of other christians are valid and they therefore possess the Holy Spirit. In that sense, the “commentary” is true, that these individuals do have faith, or they would not have been baptized. Nor does St. Peter mean to imply that all religions are equal, for at the time he stated it, there were not 30,000 denominations. Nevertheless, his words were expressed as a result of a vision sent to him by God, teaching him the truth underlying those very words.
I believe JReducation gave a beautiful sumnation of the Church’s present teaching, so I send you back to his post (#386) for better understanding. Beyond that, I see no further need to debate you folks, because this is merely a repeat of all that was discussed in several other “closed” threads.
C
chypmonk
Guest
With all due respect Brother, the expression of dogmatic statements can’t change, they are written in stone:You need to focus on what the Church is sayiing. The doctrine does not change, how it is expressed and the commentaries change. The doctrine itself is one sentence long. That has not changed. That’s what Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict are trying to say. Why do you have a problem with these two men?
I can see a problem if they changed the doctrine, but not because their comments on the doctrine are different from those of their predecessors.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra:
“ 14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding”
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (#7), Aug. 15, 1832:
“… nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”
papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm
the phase “No salvation outside the Church” is a summery of the Three DOGMATIC statements. THOSE particular statements are INFALLIBLE and are to be retained in their form and expression.
I have no problem with B16 nor JPII, if you read my posts you would know this and not throw out rash accusations, since they approved of 3 “Feeneyite” communities.
peace
P
Pitcharan
Guest
Changing with times and according to the knowledge revealed gradually is the hallmark of catholicism. Did not not our Lord teach us this when questioned about His disciples ‘not fasting’? Did He not authorise Peter (and his successors) to bind or loose as required? Have we not done away with circumcision and food taboos like ‘pork’ and ‘meat of strangulated animals’?
"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved." (Matt 9:16-17)
S
StTommyMore
Guest
practices change, dogmas do not.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
You seem to misunderstand the concept of infallible truths. An infallible truth can not change, otherwise it was never an infallible truth to begin with. For that reason, infallible teachings can not contradict previously declared infallible teaching.
And as far as fasting, eating circumcised animals, etc.; you are mixing practices and disciplines with doctrines and dogmas. The former are rules and guidelines established by the Church to help the faithful walk the straight and narrow road. They can change over time or even be completely discarded. The latter are sacred truths which can never be changed, contradicted or discarded.
S
Sirach2
Guest
First of all, you are quoting the document incorrectly, for it is not contained in Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation. This suggests to me that you simply copied the information from another website, and did not do your own research.
Secondly, the preceding tenet of the document states:
- For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
- not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
- but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
No Pope can issue any decree under the temporal authority of the Church, no matter how strongly worded it might be, which would bind any or all future Popes without their consent. Certainly, a Pope can issue a decree which will retain its force until and unless a subsequent Pope amends or nullifies it. But to bind a future Pope irrevocably would be to reduce his authority. Each successive Pope would then have less authority than the previous Pope, due to the accumulation of irrevocable decrees under the temporal authority. But it is an indisputable doctrine of the Catholic Faith that each and every valid Pope has the same authority in spiritual and temporal matters as did Saint Peter the Apostle. Therefore, no Pope can bind future Popes using the temporal authority.
Now the spiritual teaching authority (the Magisterium) is another matter. When a Pope teaches infallibly under the spiritual authority of the Church, he is merely expressing a truth that was always found, at least implicitly, in Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture. All Popes are bound by all the teachings of Divine Revelation. Infallible teachings do not limit future Popes, they enlighten them. Thus, Popes who reign later have the advantage of the insightful teachings of past Popes, so that the Successors to Peter ever increase in knowledge. But they do not decrease in temporal or spiritual authority.
Secondly, JReducation did NOT “throw out rash accusations,” as you alleged. This was a very uncharitable remark. He simply offered clarification, nothing more.
This article is well worth your consideration:
But ultimately, this is an argument about authority, and too often those who call themselves Traditionalists (as opposed to Catholics, who necessarily must have a profound respect for tradition), elevate Tradition over the living authority of Christ in the Church, exercised through the Pope and the Bishops in union with him.
Authority in the Church is living authority, by real people (the popes) who can settle real questions in real time. As Newman pointed out, it is inconceivable that there could be so great a difference in dispensation between the first Christians and ourselves that they should have a living infallible authority (Christ) and we should not.
[If that were the case, all of our popes of recent times would be heretical for promulgating greater understanding and development of doctrine, as solemnly set forth in V-II … and we know that *cannot *be true.]
The problem with Traditionalism (that is, Tradition made into an “ism”, which is to say, in effect, an ideology) is precisely the same as the problem with what the Protestants did with Scripture (one might change the name “sola scriptura” to “Scripturism”). In brief, the problem is that it elevates (what appears to some to be) a self-evident body of data over a Living Authority.
The result is the same: private judgement. In fact, elevating Tradition over the living authority of the Holy See is even worse than elevating Scripture over that authority.
The point, ultimately, is that the Church is governed by a living authority, and all appeals to Scripture, tradition, emotional attachment or personal preference (however sound and certain these appeals appear to those who make them) must ultimately bow to that living authority or cease to be Catholic.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.htm
C
chypmonk
Guest
First of all, you are quoting the document incorrectly, for it is not contained in Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation. This suggests to me that you simply copied the information from another website, and did not do your own research.
Secondly, the preceding tenet of the document states:
- For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
The point in this section of the encyclical addresses Divine Revelation. Item 14 which follows it and was quoted by you, states correctly that God’s Revelation cannot change. However, you have taken #14 out of context to fit your premise and erroneously influence the reader accordingly.
- not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
- but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
Sorrymy mistake in copying the wrong chapter. But if you look at my post it contains “14” which shows I did look it up and I gave you the link too I just put down the wrong chapter and verse.
You also have your own mistake if I understood you correctly, you said it was an encyclical I was quoting from but it is the** First Vatican Council **which was a dogmatic council. The highest form of authority.
The context does not change what i posted. The brother is wrong that Dogmatic statements can change.
S
Sirach2
Guest
I would agree with this to the extent that the Holy See makes a proclamation “Ex Cathedra” of dogmas – there have been only two in history: Immaculate Conception, and Assumption. However, you err in the fact that the Holy See has no power to address doctrinal development, which IS within its power and its Divine Authority. I refer you to one of the most revered traditionalist Bishops in the Church who has given good understanding of this. I trust you know of Bishop Bruskewitz? Notable is his example of doctrinal development used in the Arian heresy, toward the end of the article. [If an advertisement appears, you’ll need to hit “continue” and it will bring you to the article.]
S
Sirach2
Guest
Chypmonk,
What I am having a difficult time understanding is why you tenaciously promote your views of EENS? Is it not enough to hold your own belief? Must you persist in changing the minds of all who will listen to you as you deter them from official church teaching? Yes, I hear you say you uphold the teachings of V-II, yet in practice, you do your utmost to contradict them in every opportunity that arises on this forum. Why? What gain do you obtain by stating that everyone who does not enter the Catholic church will be damned? Is this your view of a merciful God that you hope to project upon others?
What I am having a difficult time understanding is why you tenaciously promote your views of EENS? Is it not enough to hold your own belief? Must you persist in changing the minds of all who will listen to you as you deter them from official church teaching? Yes, I hear you say you uphold the teachings of V-II, yet in practice, you do your utmost to contradict them in every opportunity that arises on this forum. Why? What gain do you obtain by stating that everyone who does not enter the Catholic church will be damned? Is this your view of a merciful God that you hope to project upon others?
R
rben20
Guest
Well there seems to be quite a bit of focus on those outside the Church so I guess I’ll ask the following. Are all those inside the Church saved? I would think not…besides you mean to tell me you know who is fully in the Church and who isn’t? This ultimately is handled by God as the sole judge, not even the Church or much less, a half wit layman.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear JM3,
Cordial greetings.
However, this text argues strongly in favour of the un-evangelised not being saved outside the bosom of the Church, owing to the fact that because each man is endowed with the light of conscience he is therefore without excuse and cannot plead that he is ‘invincibly ignorant’. True, he may not have the luxury of Divine revelation in all its fullness, but he does, nonetheless, have the requirements of God’s natural law written upon his heart; as one theologian has aptly said, there is a “point of contact”. Thus, the pagan who has never even heard of God’s law (or perhaps even if there is a God) is still able to distinguish right from wrong and his conscience is that innate faculty that passes its independent judgement upon his conduct. Indeed, it is an evidence of his indestructable moral nature, and is an evidence that God bears witness to Himself in his heart.
If then the imperfect witness of man’s conscience convicts him of sinful behaviour, how much more will the Divine Author of conscience condemn it? Perhaps, the pre-Vatican II Popes and theologians perceived this truth more than the progressive thinkers such as Karl Rahner and his ilk, who were essentially universalists at heart like their Protestant liberal counterparts.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
- Status