Yes, and it goes back 2000 years (not 500). By the way, it’s also full of saints, popes, martyrs, doctors, and fathers.
It is, of course, important for Christians to strive for a correct understanding of the truth.
I agree in some way. What if one congregation is into feeding the poor because Jesus said to do it, and another congregation is into evangelism because Jesus said to do it? Is one wrong?
I agree. So? Have I ever said those persons played no role in helping Christians come to see the Christian truth?Yes, and it goes back 2000 years (not 500). By the way, it’s also full of saints, popes, martyrs, doctors, and fathers.
This begs the question. How do you know that 2000 years of interpretations you speak of have been harmonious? Did a pope tell you that? Did you test this assertion and find it to be true?
What authority?Who gave you such an authority? Who gave Luther such an authority?
Thank you for your answer. Sounds like you are not too far off from the RCC. You have your own magisterium consisting of yourself (as a sunday scholl teacher) and the “community” that helps others to “see the truth” in scripture that you interpret.
And one congregation doesn’t believe in the John 6:53
Not explicitly, but it is implicit in your rejection of the authority and teachings of Christ’s Church.
It’s quite easy and quite obvious when you read the Church Fathers that the Early Christians were Catholic. And, yes, the latter is true, and it is very good to be Catholic.
The authority to stand against 2000 years of unchanging interpretation (on matters of doctrine and morals of course).
Prove it!
I would like to see a pre-Vatican 2 teaching along these lines, because this seems like a new theology concocted by modernists, but I could be wrong. Despite the fact that it is in the Catechism, I frankly do not agree with such a statement at all. Consider the standard “30,000 Protestant denominations” argument. It is totally undermined by such a statement because the fact that there are so many Protestant sects necessarily implies that the Holy Spirit is not at work in their “ecclesial communities” much less that they’re a “means of salvation”!
I do believe that the Holy Spirit works through individual Protestants (obviously or there would never be conversions to the Church), but not through Protestantism itself. Also, how do these heretical sects derive their power “from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church”? They lack the sacraments (grace) as well as sound doctrine (truth), so it just doesn’t seem to add up. Furthermore, what is the mechanism by which this power is derived from the True Church? That paragraph from the Catechism is nothing short of absurd and has done nothing but make me question whether or not the Church has overdeveloped its teaching on No Salvation Outside the Church to one of indifference. :whacky:
Provide some evidence for such an assertion. The only doctrine that I’ve ever seen to “change” is the doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church, but this is debateable. Other than that, I can see nothing that has even developed beyond its original meaning.
How do you define “the Christian truth”? What/Who gave you the authority to determine which of those people did or did not play a role in helping Christians come to that truth? Can you just pick and choose selective writings that fit your pre-conceive notion of “the Christian truth” (like Luther did with Augustine’s writings)?
The pope and the bishops have never changed any doctrine. Doctrines have been examined and understood more deeply which is biblical, (John 16:12–13), but no doctrine has ever been made to mean the opposite of it once was.
kujo313 said:
Someone correct me if I am wrong but I do not think the “no salvation outside of the church” is “de fide” and therefore it is perfectly acceptable to develop it. Much like the theory on Limbo was never a de fide dogma. Or like the discipline of priestly celibacy- there was a time in the church when priests were allowed to marry. However, the practice if celibacy is not dogma, and therefore can change.
Eastern Catholic priests are still permitted to be married **before **ordination.
Correct. I should have clarified: Latin Rite Catholic priests.Eastern Catholic priests are still permitted to be married **before **ordination.
First you say the Pope and bishops never changed then you say never changed any doctrine to mean the opposite. Well what do you call it where they changed from no war to a just war, and no usury to excessive usury?
No, no, no. This is completely different from limbo which was merely theological speculation and was never adopted by the Church as doctrine or priestly celibacy which is a discipline that can be done away with altogether (although it probably won’t be). No salvation outside the Church is DOGMA. Dogmas cannot be changed because they are divinely revealed. Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence declared that the Church: