The Early Church: If They Weren't Catholic, What Were They?

[Ferde_Rombola]

Actually, that was the most helpful thing he has said to me so far.

Very funny. You asked for the Church’s teaching on hell. I directed you to the relevant section in the Catechism. Guess you missed it. Or you’re not really interested in the answers to your questions, which you indicate by asking the same questions over and over again after the answer has been given to you a dozen times.

 

[crazzeto]

Very funny. You asked for the Church’s teaching on hell. I directed you to the relevant section in the Catechism. Guess you missed it. Or you’re not really interested in the answers to your questions, which you indicate by asking the same questions over and over again after the answer has been given to you a dozen times.

Ease up Frede, it’s very possible that Anna may have missed your posting. She is in no way disingenuous, and I take issue with any such suggestion.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Well, I don’t think “teaching authority” has done much better, so there you go.

BG, ‘teaching authority’ refers to Apostolic Succession. Without it, there is no guarantee of valid orders and that the Church is teaching the truth. What it, and the papal office, has done for the Catholic Church is preserve her in unity all over the world for 2000 years in spite of some vicious, prolonged and continuing attacks by Satan, whose prime target in this world IS the Catholic Church.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Ease up Frede, it’s very possible that Anna may have missed your posting. She is in no way disingenuous, and I take issue with any such suggestion.

I’m sorry, Crazzeto, she has asked how Catholics deal with fallible teaching too many times to have missed the numerous answers given to her by you and others.

What I posted to her was clear. If she missed it, she didn’t read it. f she didn’t read it, what’s the point?

 

[crazzeto]

I’m sorry, Crazzeto, she has asked how Catholics deal with fallible teaching too many times to have missed the numerous answers given to her by you and others.

What I posted to her was clear. If she missed it, she didn’t read it. f she didn’t read it, what’s the point?

Please bare in mind that this is a fairly active thread (particularly in spurts) and that few of us can keep up with it constantly. It’s easy for posts to be completely burried. Anna has already gone through a lot of theological change, from Fundamentalist to exploring the Catholic faith as well as some others. It’s a lot to take in, particularly when one considers how fundamentally different Christian orthdoxy, and in particular the CC is from her own faith.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Very funny. You asked for the Church’s teaching on hell. I directed you to the relevant section in the Catechism. Guess you missed it. Or you’re not really interested in the answers to your questions, which you indicate by asking the same questions over and over again after the answer has been given to you a dozen times.

Well, at least I am in good company. According to your statement, Pope John Paul II and Pope Pope Benedict XVI missed that teaching on hell, too.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m sorry, Crazzeto, she has asked how Catholics deal with fallible teaching too many times to have missed the numerous answers given to her by you and others.

What I posted to her was clear. If she missed it, she didn’t read it. f she didn’t read it, what’s the point?

Ferde Rombloa,

Which post of yours about fallible teachings did I miss? Any oversight was not intentional.

Anna

Edited to add P.S.

I thought I answered all of your posts here:

Ferde Rombola, When I peal away . . . .

I did use peal instead of peel. I’m usually more focused on the issues than the grammar and spelling. You might find their, instead of there; or to instead of too. It happens. Strange that my errors are the only ones you are correcting.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I guess there’s no way to gentially pack my thoughts… Where has that gotten them?

Edit
Sorry, I’m certainly not trying to sound rude… =( Perhaps I’m still a little worked up over certain recent news headlines

Crazzeto,

That is the gentlest mention of the craziness in TEC that I’ve read. You deserve a prize for showing so much restraint. :yeah_me:

Anna

P.S. Watch out for the spelling police. You misspelled “gently.” “Gentially” means something else entirely different, and it’s rather embarrassing.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Ease up Frede, it’s very possible that Anna may have missed your posting. She is in no way disingenuous, and I take issue with any such suggestion.

Please bare in mind that this is a fairly active thread (particularly in spurts) and that few of us can keep up with it constantly. It’s easy for posts to be completely burried. Anna has already gone through a lot of theological change, from Fundamentalist to exploring the Catholic faith as well as some others. It’s a lot to take in, particularly when one considers how fundamentally different Christian orthdoxy, and in particular the CC is from her own faith.

Crazzeto,

Thanks for the support; but no worries. I’m tougher than you’d think. :knight2:

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I went to Divine Liturgy a few weeks ago, and I was surprised how non-ethnic and un-weird it was. It was an OCA parish, and a few prayers were in Russian, but the rest didn’t seem ethnic so much as old. It was a parish with lot of converts, which I’m sure made a difference - the priest had been an Anglican priest.

Talking to the people, one thing that has really struck me compared to Catholicism is how intimately the priest was involved in the parishioners lives. They all had close supervision of their prayer and religious life, confession isn’t anonymous and involves a lot of discussion, the “rules” are very much tailored to a persons situation and abilities.

Bluegoat,

Very interesting Bluegoat. Sounds like a good congregation. Taking care of one another within and beyond the Church is always a “shining” moment in Christianity. Sometimes we forget to let the light of Christ shine.

Anna

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea,

I do like simplicity but the more I study Catholicism, the more complicated it becomes.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Complicated? It should not be complicated at all.You seem to be making more complicated than it is due to the fact you are asking far to many people the same questions. Narrow it down to the official church teachings and not the opinions of others here.

I suppose it’s not so complicated. One must submit mind and will to the Pontiff.

Anna

 

[crazzeto]

I suppose it’s not so complicated. One must submit mind and will to the Pontiff.

Anna

Well, in which specific way do you feel it’s complicated. I would suggest that indeed it’s difficult, but typically not very complicated unless you start introducing personal sin into the equation.

Part of me wonders whether or not the main sticking point truely remains an issue of Authority. So far, it would seem, every objection we’ve discussed revolves around it.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well, in which specific way do you feel it’s complicated. I would suggest that indeed it’s difficult, but typically not very complicated unless you start introducing personal sin into the equation.

Part of me wonders whether or not the main sticking point truely remains an issue of Authority. So far, it would seem, every objection we’ve discussed revolves around it.

Crazzeto,

It does come down to the authority issue. I can submit mind and will to Christ. I realize for Catholics, submitting to the mind and will of Christ is the same as submitting mind and will to the Magisterium.

I think what really through me, was the requirement to submit mind and will even to the non-infallible teachings. That’s a huge hurdle for me and I’m not sure I can get over it. In all fairness to my questioning, keep in mind there are Catholics on this thread who are not willing to do that either.

Anna

 

[crazzeto]

Crazzeto,

It does come down to the authority issue. I can submit mind and will to Christ. I realize for Catholics, submitting to the mind and will of Christ is the same as submitting mind and will to the Magisterium.

I think what really through me, was the requirement to submit mind and will even to the non-infallible teachings. That’s a huge hurdle for me and I’m not sure I can get over it. In all fairness to my questioning, keep in mind there are Catholics on this thread who are not willing to do that either.

Anna

It’s a tough thing, and believe it or not the Church isn’t saying you’re not ever allowed to doubt or question. Quite the contrary, and part of what… In a way makes me chuckle a little with the Anglican Communion’s “Scripture, Tradition, Reason” is that I know when this was forumlated it was a suggestion that the Catholic Church rejects that last item.

But it doesn’t, it never has and quite the contrary it’s the biggest proponent of using your reason. Yes question, yes probe, but just not to the point of Schism or teaching any doctrine contrary to the doctrine which was handed down by the Apostles, something which St. Paul warns about in Romans 16:

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them.
Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not Christ our Lord but their own belly: and by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent.
Rom 16:19 For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good and simple in evil.

Lumen Gentium is a product of centuries of protestant reformation, and the danger of looming modernism. The church felt in necessary to poinently remind the lay faithful of the same admonishment that St. Paul made, don’t go off inventing your own teachings. I would argue the reminder was particularly well timed, when you look at the current state of the world, and the state of some issues with both the layety and clergy right now which the Church is sorting through.

So I would suggest a new tract for this conversation if that is OK. We can talk adoration, we can talk vestments (as much as I respect gurney, I felt that was a little silly to bring up) or whatever else. But I think before we talk about that we need to talk about the nature of the authority which Christ left us with in his Church.

 

[Nicea325]

I suppose it’s not so complicated. One must submit mind and will to the Pontiff.

Anna

When he is in accord with orthodoxy: faith, morals and doctrines,of course. Again Anna,either Jesus promised the HS to His Church and His bishops or He did not?

 

[josie_L]

Everyone not in submission to the pope was excluded from salvation. How is this not Feeneyism?

• “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is** absolutely necessary for the salvation **of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

• “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, **no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” **(Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 – 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum )

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 – 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter )

“No Salvation outside of the Church” is a dogma of the CC that was defined at the lateran IV council in 1215, so yes, it is an infallible teaching which requires the assent of the faithful. Moreover, the bulls which have been cited are solemn definitions of that dogma (but they are not ex-cathedra statements). The Bull Cantate Domino is not a papal act as it was proclaimed/defined during the Council of Florence. This being said the “no salvation outside of the Church” does not mean that those outside of the Church cannot be saved, i.e., only baptized Catholics are saved. What is meant by this dogma is that the Church is necessary for the salvation of all men, i.e., it is through her that the means to salvation is brought forth for all mankind. There can only be one Church belonging to Christ, and that is the Catholic Church (visibly) headed by the Roman pontiff. This dogma has not changed nor has it been contradicted by statements made at Vatican II because what we fail to see is that while this dogma was proclaimed (in 1215) other doctrines/teachings (rooted in Tradition and Scripture) were simultaneously being developed, i.e., baptism of desire (which was definitively proclaimed at the Council of Trent). At the time the dogma of “no salvation outside of the Church” was proclaimed St. Thomas Aquinas was already conceding the fact “that a person may be saved extra sacramentally by a baptism of desire and therefore without actual membership by reason of his at least implicit desire to belong to the Church”. Vatican II intertwined these two doctrines, and as a result the Church’s understanding as increased. I must reiterate that the Church is still necessary for the salvation of all men (anyone who is saved outside of the Church is saved inspite of their religion not because of it), but there are those who through no fault of their own are ignorant of this. Therefore they who are ignorant can still be saved, i.e., they can be saved with the help of grace, i.e., baptism of desire (as well as blood in some cases). Here are some websites I think will help you understand in full the dogmas presented:

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/on-salvation-outside-catholic-church.html

socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/12/ecumenism-evangelism-and-apologetics.html

 

[josie_L]

I suppose it’s not so complicated. One must submit mind and will to the Pontiff.

Anna

You are not submitting mind and will to his person but rather to his teachings which must be in accord with the deposit of faith, i.e., what has been revealed thus far via ecumenical councils, papal pronouncements (ex-cathedra), that which was/is agreed upon by the ordinary universal magisterium guided by the Pope, as well as scripture and tradition. Therefore, even if he teaches in a non-infallible way (not ex-cathedra) this does not mean that what he is saying is fallible.

p.s. If perchance the pontiff is not teaching according to what has been revealed then you are not obliged to submit mind and will to his teachings because he excommunicates himself from the body of Christ.

 

[crazzeto]

You are not submitting mind and will to his person but rather to his teachings which must be in accord with the deposit of faith, i.e., what has been revealed thus far via ecumenical councils, papal pronouncements (ex-cathedra), and that which is agreed upon by the ordinary universal magisterium guided by the Pope. Therefore, even if he teaches in a non-infallible way (not ex-cathedra) this does not mean that what he is saying is fallible.

p.s. If perchance the pontiff is not teaching according to what has been revealed then you are not obliged to submit mind and will to his teachings because he excommunicates himself from the body of Christ.

True, but then one would point to Lumen Gentium… In which case the response is, it’s not up to the individual believer to make the decission that this has happend on an official capacity. Now if you feel it might have, you can feel free to ask the questions and see what Church authorities think. If such a thing is true, I have no doubt there would be switch action.

 

[josie_L]

True, but then one would point to Lumen Gentium… In which case the response is, it’s not up to the individual believer to make the decission that this has happend on an official capacity. Now if you feel it might have, you can feel free to ask the questions and see what Church authorities think. If such a thing is true, I have no doubt there would be switch action.

Yes, you are right in stating that it is not up to the individual believer to make the decision in any official capacity, however, we as Catholics must know our faith (as revealed thus far) in order to know when someone is leading us astray (think of priests who teach things contrary to the faith thus allowing for parishioners to be deceived).

p.s. When I say teachings I do not mean, of course, pronouncements made ex-cathedra as I believe in papal infallibility, I refer only to papal teachings “spoken” non-infallibly (which again does not mean they are fallible, in fact, many are expressions of infallible truths of the faith).