"The Church teaches now what it taught 2000 years ago!"

[Pete_1]

Maybe this will help;

catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909frs.asp
and this:
(St Augustine)

When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body. . . . All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark (ibid., 5:28[39]).

 

[tbuley]

For instance?
Source where you get the information?
Please.

For instance what I’ve read on Augustine vs Pelagius Augustine takes a monergist position I remember a quote to the like of man being a beast between two riders having a “slave will”. Now the R.C.C. seems to have a synergistic stance or partial pelagian view.
I’m just a laymen who enjoys reading on this kind of stuff so I haven’t researched to deep into the arguments but I’m willing.

If the second question is directed at my S.-American comment I’ve seen video of some strange ceremonies of carrying statues with torches and face paint, were cultures have tried to incorporate there pagan practice in with Catholicism.

 

[averheyen]

I constantly hear this claim in response to non-Catholics who wish to know the attributes of the Church. She preserves truth reguardless of the times and her truth has never shanged.

Yet I think history suggusts otherwise. The most obvious example would be extra ecclesiam nulla sallus, can anyone truly, with any semblence of intelectual honsty tell me that the Church has remained consistent and unchanging in this issue?

It seems now that many Catholics beleive Jews will be saved, St. Edith Stein even claimes to have seen her Jewish mother in heaven, and I beleive Pope John Paul II said something to this effect, yet clearly the early(er) Church taught that Jews were not saved.
The Council of Florance for example.
“It (the council) firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, 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 Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

Thoughts?

If I were to look at the Catholic Church over the last 2000 to see what’s changed, and the protestest denominations over the last 500, I would have to objectively state that the Catholic Church TRUMPS any and all protestant demoninations on keeping it’s teachings authentic and consistant.

 

[Pope_Gregory]

Thats interesting most Catholics I know think we can only be saved through Christ. I haven’t heard many Catholics saying they think Jews are saved.

Maybe its different in more liberal states like NY or Calif. I live in the midwest. I personally think more its the media and secular pressure for changing the minds of Catholics than the Church itself.

I do believe alot of Catholics, espesially in big citys have caved into moral relativism and unitarianism(people outside Christ can be saved).

i think alot of people misinterperate Vatican II. Truely there is no salvation outside Jesus Christ and his Church.

For instance what I’ve read on Augustine vs Pelagius Augustine takes a monergist position I remember a quote to the like of man being a beast between two riders having a "slave will

I think thats a very good interperatation. I always loved Augustines writings on theology. “Slave Will” does seem to kinda sum it up. We have the free will to do almost anything, but at the same time we do have limitations as what we can do with our bodys and thus we have free will in a limited “slave-ish” sense. Be even though we have free will in a limited sense it is still synergist. I don’t think augustine had a full monergist position the way Calvin had.

 

[PaulDupre]

Hi tbuley,
It is important to remember that Augustine was a theologian, not a pope. It is the job of theologians to propose explanations and theories and interpretations of scripture. Many of them also wrote defenses against heresies. But unless a teaching comes from the magisterium of the church, it is not Catholic doctrine.

The ECFs are very useful, though, for tracking the history of doctrinal development, the development of religious vocabulary and to understand what may have been the prevailing attitudes of their time.

As for your South American question: Not everything done by the faithful is sanctioned by the church. Never been to S.A. but I travel to the Philippines often, and I cringe when I see Filipinos crucifying one another (albeit with very small nails) on Good Friday. The bishop issues a statement every year telling them not to do it, but a few of them do it anyway. Some people confuse intensity with faithfulness. It has always been so, and not just among Catholics. Go to YouTube and search for “crazy holy Spirit” and you’ll see what I mean.

God bless,
Paul

 

[dmelosi]

For instance what I’ve read on Augustine vs Pelagius Augustine takes a monergist position I remember a quote to the like of man being a beast between two riders having a “slave will”. Now the R.C.C. seems to have a synergistic stance or partial pelagian view.
I’m just a laymen who enjoys reading on this kind of stuff so I haven’t researched to deep into the arguments but I’m willing.

If the second question is directed at my S.-American comment I’ve seen video of some strange ceremonies of carrying statues with torches and face paint, were cultures have tried to incorporate there pagan practice in with Catholicism.

Regarding the second part…just keep in mind that there are all kinds of ceremonies that have taken some things from the Catholic mass, but that sure doesn’t mean that they are Catholic. There are also many websites that claim to be Catholic, but are not.

Catholic.com, where these forums are hosted can give you answers to about anything regarding the Catholic faith.

 

[MH84]

I constantly hear this claim in response to non-Catholics who wish to know the attributes of the Church. She preserves truth reguardless of the times and her truth has never shanged.

Yet I think history suggusts otherwise. The most obvious example would be extra ecclesiam nulla sallus, can anyone truly, with any semblence of intelectual honsty tell me that the Church has remained consistent and unchanging in this issue?

It seems now that many Catholics beleive Jews will be saved, St. Edith Stein even claimes to have seen her Jewish mother in heaven, and I beleive Pope John Paul II said something to this effect, yet clearly the early(er) Church taught that Jews were not saved.
The Council of Florance for example.
“It (the council) firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, 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 Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

Thoughts?

I have wondered about this too. At the end of the Athanasian creed it says:

This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

Now the Catechism seems to say something different:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”[330] christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/church3.html

Now I have learned that the Athanasian creed is not an official creed, unlike the Nicene creed for example. There is even uncertainty who penned the Athanasian creed.

But in regards to your quote of the Council of Florence, I have two questions:

1. Where did you get this quote from?
2. Is this one of the Church’s ex-Cathedra statements?

From my personal opinion, I reckon the Church has softened her view on salvation to be more accepting of other faiths, and so to not be criticised in the wider community. I bet say, 500 or 600 years ago, the average priest would have no problems in telling who would be condemned or not. But now, no priest would dare to say something like that. These are just my opinions, not necessarily factual. Its just that I feel that when the Church was a more powerful (in worldly terms) force, everyone listened to her, everyone in the West believed the Catholic Church. Now the world has changed, and the Church wants to remain “relevant”. And I’ve heard that the CC teachings used to be very church-centered. And now, since V2, her teachings are ecumenical and have become more Christ-centred, like the Protestants.