Salvation outside the church

[mgrfin]

THIS IS THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Accept it???

Let us leave the teaching of the Catholic Church to those in whom it has been entrusted–the Magisterium. This is certainly not the teaching of the Catholic according the CCC. I refer you to the following:

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm

Please read carefully

Please prove that this is an infallible statement:

1. about faith and morals
2. spoken ex cathedra
3. intended to define de fide definita by such words as : “by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that …”
4. that it was known and received as such

We are all too anxious to quote every encyclical, apostolic letter, audience of the Holy Father as an infallible statement. Amazingly there have been few over the life of the Church. If it is a defide statement, you are going to have to prove it.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Code of Canon Law
Can. 748 §1. All persons** are bound to seek the truth **in those things which regard God and his Church and **by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation **and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

1917 Code of Canon Law 1322/2 …]all men are bound by divine law to embrace the true Church of God

Professor, are you saying men are** not bound by divine law ]to embrace ]the Catholic Church?]**

I am happy that you folks went out and got yourself a copy of the new Code of Canon Law.

Just a few points:

1. Canon 1322#2 is from the 1917 Code. THIS HAS BEEN ABROGATED

Part of Canon 748, which you did not quote says:
Canon 748#2 “No one is ever permitted to coerce a person to embrace the Catholic Faith against their conscience.”

"Conscience’ is the rule here. “Conscience” is the guide. You must follow your conscience.

peace

 

[stmaria]

I am happy that you folks went out and got yourself a copy of the new Code of Canon Law.

Just a few points:

1. Canon 1322#2 is from the 1917 Code. THIS HAS BEEN ABROGATED

 

[mgrfin]

THIS IS THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Accept it???

Let us leave the teaching of the Catholic Church to those in whom it has been entrusted–the Magisterium. This is certainly not the teaching of the Catholic according the CCC. I refer you to the following:

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm

Please read carefully

I don’t understand your question marks.

The ‘sensus fidelium’ is an important part of the Church’s Magisterium.

You seem to be suggesting that we sit mute in our pews and not say anything. I don’t see any bishops on this website. Somebody has to do the talking. Some of us have credentials.

Maybe you are, with the name 'theo-professor". Are you an ‘episcopus’?

peace

 

[TMC]

As far as I am concerned, along with St. Thomas Aquinas, the natural law is enscribed in the hearts and minds of mankind. The Decalogue was a revelation by God to the Israelites, and it was the heart and center of the Old Covenant between God and man.
“Do good”, 'Avoid evil", ‘do to your brother what you would wish to be done to you’. Those are enscribed in the hearts of all men, at least we can argue that they are.

But,
Do you believe that “I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before Me” is inscribed in the hearts and minds of some lowly tribe in Africa, 400 years before Christ?

Do you believe that “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” is written in the souls of mankind?

Do you believe “Remember thou keep holy the Lord’s day” was required of pagan tribes in Asia Minor?

It is not reasonable to ask us to believe that these commandments were written into the hearts and minds of all mankind?

God didn’t believe they were enscribed, that is why he gave them to Moses, who wrote them down.

St. Thomas wouldn’t argue that the 10 commandments were anything but Revelation; neither do I.

peace

I think that the Natural Law is best summarized by Christ’s commandments to love God and to love one another. It’s a little more than “do good, avoid evil.” I think it is also a little more than do unto others. The command to love God is part of the natural law, I think, but it is perhaps better summarized as ‘recognize that there is something beyond yourself, that is greater than you are’. So some cultures have responded imperfectly to this law by worshipping false gods or by worshiping ideals.

But your base point I agree with strongly. I think that many people toss things into “Natural Law” that are more accurately described as "derived from Natural Law principles. There is a big difference. The more I look at it, the more I am convinced that the Natural Law only encompasses a very small set of very broad rules, i.e. love God, and love one another.

We also have revelation, which adds more rules and substance to the Natural Law, but we must remember that even these rules must be interpreted in light of the first two. This is where the Decalogue fits, along with a very few other things.

Everything else is the result of reasoning from those principles. Like all products of human reason, these laws can be imperfect or flat-out wrong. Many very bad laws that we now reject were said to be “Natural Law” at one time.

I have quoted the CCC, Cardinal Ratzinger, and Cardinal Arinze.

Are they all too poetic?

I think that those are all consistent with what I said above. The Card. Ratzinger document you quote from quotes in turn from Irenaeus for the proposition that the Decalogue is a rationale and reasoned ethical code derived from the Natural Law and given to help man live in accord with Natural Law. As a “preparation for friendship with God and justice towards our neighbour.” The morality that is drawn from the Decalogue is similarly a rationale construct, now one more setp away from Natural Law.

As we develop more detailed rules, we naturally take more steps from the source. At some point, we need to check our backtrail and make sure we have not strayed from first principles.

Some people refer to all rules along these steps informally as “Natural Law,” but they are merely derived from, or reasoned from Natural Law.

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin;3365491:

I am happy that you folks went out and got yourself a copy of the new Code of Canon Law.

Doesn’t the new code say the same thing?

That’s irrevelant.We are not talking about forcing someone to accept the Catholic Church

And if your conscience leads you to embrace the Church of Christ or the Assembly of God then what?
What if your conscience leads you to atheism?

Are we bound by divine law to embrace the Catholic Church or not?

You are obligated to follow your conscience. If you were obligated to reject your conscience, then you could go out to coerce people to accept the Faith. That canon really answers your question, and is not irrevelant. Conscience is the norm for morality.

peace

 

[stmaria]

stmaria;3365549:

You are obligated to follow your conscience. If you were obligated to reject your conscience, then you could go out to coerce people to accept the Faith. That canon really answers your question, and is not irrevelant. Conscience is the norm for morality.

peace

Are you saying that a man has a divine right to follow his conscience even if it leads him to embrace Mormonism?

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin;3365781:

Are you saying that a man has a divine right to follow his conscience even if it leads him to embrace Mormonism?

He must follow his conscience.

That probably sets the EENS people in a tizzy. That’s catholicism. CCC 1795-1802.

CCC 1800: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience”.

Jimmy Cricket said the same thing.

peace

 

[jim28]

He must follow his conscience.

That probably sets the EENS people in a tizzy. That’s catholicism. CCC 1795-1802.

peace

POPE GREGORY XVI AUGUST 15, 1832 MIRARI VOS:

1. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit”[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws – in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Following ones conscience, as it happens is not Catholicism:
This is going to send those who don’t believe in Catholic Dogma in a tizzy.

 

[stmaria]

=mgrfin;3366035]

He must follow his conscience.
That probably sets the EENS people in a tizzy. That’s catholicism. CCC 1795-1802.
CCC 1800: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience”.

Jimmy Cricket said the same thing.

peace

If someone rejects the Church because they **are following their conscience **and they become a Mormon they will not lose their salvation?

 

[mgrfin]

.

You can’t take this statement seriously?

What theological note would you apply to this statement?

I think we would like to forget about it.

It has no level of infallibilty for sure. He wants to keep the princes in power, and subjugate all of Europe to temporality.

peace

 

[DustinsDad]

We have the natural law, and we have the Decalogue. They are not the same.

The moral truths that are articulated precisely by Divine Revelation in the Decalogue* are* the Natural Law. And these moral truths are written in men’s hearts.

The Gentiles were worshipping false gods. To them, those gods were real.

They had the Natural Law of the need to worship the One True God written in their hearts but were unable to adhere to it because they were still in ignorance of this One True God - they were still seeking and God understood this. But upon the hearing of the true God, upon the preaching of the Gospel, that Natural Law Truth written in their hearts* require* them to abandon the false gods and turn to the One True God. Acts 17:30-31
And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should every where do penance. Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in equity, by the man whom he hath appointed; giving faith to all, by raising him up from the dead.

At the preaching of the Gospel - no more winking. The moral truth of the First Commandment applies to the hearers of the preaching of the Gospel because the moral truth of the First Commandment is written in their heart…they must abandon their false gods and turn to the One True God in His One True Church for the salvation of their souls. Outside of the Church there is No Salvation.

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

… Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Following ones conscience, as it happens is not Catholicism:
This is going to send those who don’t believe in Catholic Dogma in a tizzy.

:clapping:

 

[mgrfin]

If someone rejects the Church because they **are following their conscience **and they become a Mormon they will not lose their salvation?

I repeat what is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience”.

Can you respond directly to that, rather than an appeal to some emotional argument?

You are in our prayers.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

At the preaching of the Gospel - no more winking. The moral truth of the First Commandment applies to the hearers of the preaching of the Gospel because the moral truth of the First Commandment is written in their heart…they must abandon their false gods and turn to the One True God in His One True Church for the salvation of their souls. Outside of the Church there is No Salvation.

DustinsDad

Surely, you don’t believe that. Even the finest of minds, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, who searched for the one true God never had belief in anything like the Israelites had, even with their occasional idolatry.

Their belief in god was not belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It took revelation to come to this belief.

Like Plato’s god, the pagan god was a shadow, an idolatrous statue.

It was up to Aquinas to ‘baptise’ Aristotle, to bring his philosophy into useful bounds.

The natural law is not the decologue.

peace

 

[DustinsDad]

DustinsDad:

They had the Natural Law of the need to worship the One True God written in their hearts but were unable to adhere to it because they were still in ignorance of this One True God - they were still seeking and God understood this. But upon the hearing of the true God, upon the preaching of the Gospel, that Natural Law Truth written in their hearts* require*

them to abandon the false gods and turn to the One True God.
Acts 17:30-31
And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should every where do penance. Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in equity, by the man whom he hath appointed; giving faith to all, by raising him up from the dead.

At the preaching of the Gospel - no more winking. The moral truth of the First Commandment applies to the hearers of the preaching of the Gospel because the moral truth of the First Commandment is written in their heart…they must abandon their false gods and turn to the One True God in His One True Church for the salvation of their souls. Outside of the Church there is No Salvation.

Surely, you don’t believe that. Even the finest of minds, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, who searched for the one true God never had belief in anything like the Israelites had, even with their occasional idolatry.

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle didn’t have the Gospel preached to them. Read my post again. It’s not really that difficult a concept. Pretty basic.

DD

 

[DustinsDad]

You are obligated to follow your conscience. If you were obligated to reject your conscience, then you could go out to coerce people to accept the Faith. That canon really answers your question, and is not irrevelant. Conscience is the norm for morality.

A perfect example of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience. SeeCCC 1790) A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
(CCC 1791) This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
(CCC 1792) Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions,** assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience**, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
Consciences can be well-formed, malformed, or dead.

How do we knw when it is well formed? When it is in accord with Church Teaching. To the extent it is not in accord with Church Teaching, it is in error - malformed.

We have a duty and a responsibility all our lives to form our conscience in accord with Truth. To neglect to do this is a violation of the Natural Law, the First Commandment, and of course, the will of God.

DD

 

[DustinsDad]

I repeat what is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience”.

See the above post that includes this from the CCC and puts it in context. It’s the use of the term “certain judgement of concience” that is crucial. As it is used in the CCC, it is meant to indicate a properly formed conscience, since it then goes on to describe the ill effects (sin) of following a malformed conscience.

And CCC even mentions the sin of claiming that conscience trumps truth - which is the position you demonstrate in your post.

DD

 

[mgrfin]

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle didn’t have the Gospel preached to them. Read my post again. It’s not really that difficult a concept. Pretty basic.

DD

They didn’t believe: thou shalt not have strange gods before me, etc.

Well, that proves my point. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, admittedly the greatest minds of Greece came up with a very primitive concept of god - the god of the natural law.

The Israelites had divine Revelation, saw the Red Sea part, ate manna in the desert, and yet, they still fell into idolatry.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

See the above post that includes this from the CCC and puts it in context. It’s the use of the term “certain judgement of concience” that is crucial. As it is used in the CCC, it is meant to indicate a properly formed conscience, since it then goes on to describe the ill effects (sin) of following a malformed conscience.

And CCC even mentions the sin of claiming that conscience trumps truth - which is the position you demonstrate in your post.

DD

I learned that in Moral Theology ages ago. You’re not going to do that ‘put it in context’ thing.

The CCC is clear, and the statement is direct and simple.
Truth is something objective. But, even what you experience on this website, all the ‘believers’ can’t seem to get it right. That is why the informed conscience thrumps anything you got.

The Pope tells us one thing, and a SSPX believes something else. What is he supposed to do? Follow his conscience. You will defend that til death.

peace