To a Roman Catholic are Protestants good Christians?

[Unitas]

There is One Church, Holy Catholic and Apostolic, whose visible head is the Roman Pontiff. He who accepts the doctines and traditions of the Church and is Baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and submitts to the authority of the Pontiff, is Catholic.

So yes, only Catholics are inside the Church and all others are outside and therefore will not have salvation? Just trying to clarify.

 

[lak611]

So yes, only Catholics are inside the Church and all others are outside and therefore will not have salvation? Just trying to clarify.

See the article I gave the link to in post #219.

 

[TNT]

Are Catholics the only ones inside the Church and all others are outside?

Heaven forbid!
There are Sola-Scriptura Catholics.
No-Immaculate Conception Catholics.
Sola-Fide Catholics.
No-Pope Catholics.
Peter-the-Pebble Catholics.
Adult-Only-Baptism Catholics.
No-Real-Presence-only-a-Symbol Catholics.

And last but not least there are:
Sola-Scriptura-No-Immaculate-Conception-Sola-Fide-No-Pope-Peter-the Pebble-Adult-Only-Baptism-No-Real-Presence-only-a -Symbol Catholics.

For Pete’s sake, if they are not OUTSIDE they can only be INSIDE, therefore Catholic.http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Religious/Monks_and_Nuns/Hooded_monk.gif

DOWN WITH HERESY! (I mean the use of it. Except for the Traditional Catholics, of course.)

Ok, one more:
You-catholics-r-goin-ta-hell-catholics.

 

[Unitas]

See the article I gave the link to in post #219.

Oh I know, it just seems caesar has a very different idea of what “outside the church there is no salvation” means than the CCC, the article you linked, and accepted Catholic belief.

I’m just trying to pin down exactly what he means. I want to hear it from him.

 

[Caesar]

Oh I know, it just seems caesar has a very different idea of what “outside the church there is no salvation” means than the CCC, the article you linked, and accepted Catholic belief.

I’m just trying to pin down exactly what he means. I want to hear it from him.

Oh yes, the This Rock magazine is an infallible document.

The Catholic belief is the infallible Dogma.

 

[Robert902]

Whose interpretations do you follow?

You can’t help but follow your personal interpretation as guided by the Spirit. You can and should, however, allow your interpretation to be shaped by the tradition of the Universal Church. The Spirit speaks to the Church as a whole–this does not take away from the reality of the Spirit’s voice in your own heart. There is no contradiction or conflict between what the Spirit is telling you and what the Spirit is telling the Church as a whole. If there appears to be, then either you are not hearing the Spirit accurately (which is highly probable) or you are mistakenly interpreting what the Church says (which is also probable) or the Church as a whole is wrong (which if we’re really talking about a worldwide consensus through the centuries on an important topic is practially impossible).

Edwin

 

[Caesar]

I really dont understand what is so hard about this. There is a Dogma, which is an infallible teaching of Holy Mother Church. It doesnt matter if This Rock magazine ignore Dogma; it doesnt even matter if the CCC ignores the Dogma.

Can one person then please, please, explain to me why we are discarding infallible Dogma in favor of a fallible Catechism in this discussion?

 

[Unitas]

I really dont understand what is so hard about this. There is a Dogma, which is an infallible teaching of Holy Mother Church. It doesnt matter if This Rock magazine ignore Dogma; it doesnt even matter if the CCC ignores the Dogma.

Can one person then please, please, explain to me why we are discarding infallible Dogma in favor of a fallible Catechism in this discussion?

How does the CCC differ with the dogma?

 

[Robert902]

Personal interpretations differ from being guided by the Holy Spirit. Personal interpretation is what got Joseph Smith in trouble. The Bible teaches that the Gospel is “not for private interpretation”. I’m not making this up…read it for yourself!

If I “feel” that I am being guided by the Holy Spirit when reading The Holy Scriptures, and my interpretation doesn’t coincide with other passages in the Bible, then possibly I was wrong.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and The Word was God”. According to a personal interpretation by The Watchtower and Tract Society that verse should read; “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God”.

When did you hear any of the Apostles use the term private or personal interpretation? Where are we taught in the Bible about personal interpretations and their use?

 

[Caesar]

Ho does the CCC differ with the dogma?

Do I have to go through this yet again?

Like I said above, there are three levels of the Magisterium- thats the teaching authority of the Church: the Extraordinay Magisterium, the Universal Magisterium and the Ordinary Magisterium. The Extraordinary Magisterium and the Universal Magisterium are Infallible, the Ordinary Magisterium is not.

To qualify for the Extraordinary Magisterium, a matter of faith and morals has to be solemnly declared a Dogma by the Pope or by a Dogmatic Council with the consent of a Pope.

To qualify for the Universal Magisterium, a teaching has to be in accordance with the established traditions of the Church.

Now, the CCC was never declared infallible- it wouldnt be as it is a teaching tool for the faith, not a matter of faith in itself- therefore it does not qualify as part of the Extraordinary Magisterium. Parts of it (most of it) falls under the Universal Magisterium, because these parts agree with the established beliefs of the Church (for example, when the CCC discusses the Eucharist, it is teaching what has been taught since the begining of the Church). But this issue itself- Salvation outside the Church- is not taught in the CCC as it has been taught throughout the history of the Church, it goes against established tradition. Therefore, the passages in the CC that deal with salvation outside the Church are part of the fallible Ordinary Magisterium, since they are still teachings, but not in accordance with established tradition, in particular the Dogma that there is no Salvation Outside the Church.

 

[Caesar]

Personal interpretations differ from being guided by the Holy Spirit. Personal interpretation is what got Joseph Smith in trouble. The Bible teaches that the Gospel is “not for private interpretation”. I’m not making this up…read it for yourself!

If I “feel” that I am being guided by the Holy Spirit when reading The Holy Scriptures, and my interpretation doesn’t coincide with other passages in the Bible, then possibly I was wrong.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and The Word was God”. According to a personal interpretation by The Watchtower and Tract Society that verse should read; “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God”.

When did you hear any of the Apostles use the term private or personal interpretation? Where are we taught in the Bible about personal interpretations and their use?

Because there is no private interpretation. There is one interpretation, and that is the interpretation of the Catholic Church and as such it is the only true interpretation.

And now we are getting off-topic, so if you want to discuss this further, start a new thread.

 

[Robert902]

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Light. Being Catholic is being a member of the Church he founded upon St Peter as the first among equals (the other Apostles) and started its organizational structure and life at Pentacost in 33 AD (give or take).

More importantly, what “teachings” (do you mean disciplines, like unmarried priests? or doctrines, like the Trinity? or dogma, like the Immaculate Conception? or Sacraments, like the Eucharist? or sacramentals, like the nativity scene, the rosary and the Stations of the Cross?)

What specifically concerns you, Robert?

We cannot answer general accusations with specifics.

Get a little focused here and tell us what bothers you. I am sure someone here can frame it for you or direct you to a source which presents Catholic teaching on it.

Pax Christi

 

[Unitas]

Do I have to go through this yet again?

Like I said above, there are three levels of the Magisterium- thats the teaching authority of the Church: the Extraordinay Magisterium, the Universal Magisterium and the Ordinary Magisterium. The Extraordinary Magisterium and the Universal Magisterium are Infallible, the Ordinary Magisterium is not.

To qualify for the Extraordinary Magisterium, a matter of faith and morals has to be solemnly declared a Dogma by the Pope or by a Dogmatic Council with the consent of a Pope.

To qualify for the Universal Magisterium, a teaching has to be in accordance with the established traditions of the Church.

Now, the CCC was never declared infallible- it wouldnt be as it is a teaching tool for the faith, not a matter of faith in itself- therefore it does not qualify as part of the Extraordinary Magisterium. Parts of it (most of it) falls under the Universal Magisterium, because these parts agree with the established beliefs of the Church (for example, when the CCC discusses the Eucharist, it is teaching what has been taught since the begining of the Church). But this issue itself- Salvation outside the Church- is not taught in the CCC as it has been taught throughout the history of the Church, it goes against established tradition. Therefore, the passages in the CC that deal with salvation outside the Church are part of the fallible Ordinary Magisterium, since they are still teachings, but not in accordance with established tradition, in particular the Dogma that there is no Salvation Outside the Church.

So only faithful Catholics will be saved since “ouside the Church there is no salvation?” Heretics, Jews, and pagans will all go to hell? And the CCC stating the possibility of salvation to non-Catholics is where it is in error? (But that’s ok since the CCC isn’t infallible to begin with?)

Is that a correct assessment from all of the info you’ve provided from your previous posts?

 

[Robert902]

Yes, I believe in the virgin birth, the Trinity, and the resurrecution.
As a Catholic there are many “works” that must be accomplished to gain salvation. Is that not true?
And as a Catholic I am never really sure if I am going to make it to heaven. Is that correct?
If I commit a mortal sin, and die before I go to confession, I either go to purgatory, or to hell. Am I correct?
If I am not a Catholic, I will for sure go to hell. Isn’t that so?

You asked me what was bothering me? What I don’t understand is that if all this is necessary to make it to heaven(at least according to the Catholic church), then how did the thief on the cross get to go to heaven?
According to Catholic dogma, the thief on the cross is in hell or purgatory.
That’s what is bothering me.

 

[Caesar]

Ok, I know the whole Dogma, Doctrine, tradition, Extraordinary/Universal/Ordinay Magisterium thing is a little confusing. So let me try to help all those who are a little confused.

Let us use another example. How about the issue of female priests?

Now, say His Holiness Benedict XVI sees that there is a growing confusion over the idea of ordaining women to the priesthood. He might write an encyclical that says,

“Christ only chose male Apostles, who were the priests, therefore only men can be priests.”

In saying this, his encyclical would be part of the Universal Magisterium because it teaches what the Church has always taught. It does not introduce anything new, it merely restates the Tradition of the Church in this matter. Therefore, the encyclical is infallible.

But lets say that his encyclical didnt clear up the matter over female priests, and the Holy Father wants to define a male-only priesthood once and for all. He can do one of two things- he could call a Dogmatic Ecumenical Council which will address this issue. The Council will issue a Dogma saying that it is a matter of faith that only men can be ordained and that it is sacramentaly impossible for women to be priests. Or, Benedict might just make an Ex Cathedra declaration saying,

“By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority as Supreme Pontiff , We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed Dogma that it is sacramentaly impossible for a woman to recieve the Sacrament of Holy Orders.”

Notice something about this- We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed Dogma- it is stated outright that this is a declaration of a Dogma. There is no if ands or buts about it- the Holy Father has bluntly stated that he is defining an issue and making it Dogma. He has issued an infallible statement, and should anyone deny it then anathema sit.

Both the Dogma issued by the Council and the declaration made by the Pope are then part of the Extraordinary Magisterium and are infallible.

Now, lets say there is a priest, we will call him Fr. X, who says,

“Women cannot be priests because the Pope says so”.

What Fr. X says is not wrong- he agrees that women cannot be priests- but it is not in accordance with tradition either, since the established doctrines of the Church say Christ established a male priesthood, not the Pope. Therefore, this falls into the Ordinary Magisterium. The statement made by Fr. X is not infallible, although it should be taken into consideration and not immediately dismissed. Just because what Fr. X says is not exactly what the Church has always said, doesnt make him entirely wrong.

Finally, lets say there is a Catholic professor , Mr. Z, and he says,

“Women can priests, the Church is wrong to say they cant. It IS sacramentaly possible for a women to be ordained. Why should Pope Benedict say they cant?”

So, what part of the Magisterium is Mr. Z’s statement part of? Trick question- it isnt part of the Magisterium at all. In fact, it is heresy and Mr. Z has incurred automatic excommunication- anathema sit!

Hope my poor attempt at an explaination of the Magisterium and Infallibilty didnt confuse anyone even more

 

[Unitas]

Yes, I believe in the virgin birth, the Trinity, and the resurrecution.

Excellent.

As a Catholic there are many “works” that must be accomplished to gain salvation. Is that not true?

Salvation is not a checklist. But when we conform our wills to that of God, our works, in collaboration with the Holy Spirit, provides an opportunity that God may gift us with grace. It’s God’s perogative. God cannot “owe” us for our good works, because they are as rags. But when working in collaboration with God’s will, He may decide to reward us. Faith without works is dead faith.

And as a Catholic I am never really sure if I am going to make it to heaven. Is that correct?

Presumption of God’s mercy and salvation is a sin. The same we don’t know for sure if someone is going to hell, we don’t know if they’re going to heaven, either.

If I commit a mortal sin, and die before I go to confession, I either go to purgatory, or to hell. Am I correct?

If you die with an unrepentant heart regarding that mortal sin, yes, you will.

If I am not a Catholic, I will for sure go to hell. Isn’t that so?

The CCC teaches no, but the Feeneyites will tell you otherwise. As the Catholic Church is the repository of all truth, any of its truth you believe in, places you in union with it. Because of this partial union, you are not automatically destined for hell, because you are not fully outside of teh Church, where there is no salvation. This does not gaurantee you salvation, only that automatic damnation is not applicable.

You asked me what was bothering me? What I don’t understand is that if all this is necessary to make it to heaven(at least according to the Catholic church),

That’s because this thread has turned into how authoritative is the CCC, because the CCC and Lumen Gentium teaches things some more reactionary people don’t want to accept.

then how did the thief on the cross get to go to heaven?
According to Catholic dogma, the thief on the cross is in hell or purgatory.
That’s what is bothering me.

It is possible to recieve sacraments by desire. Baptism is a good example of this, as well as reconciliation. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote extensively about that if the will and heart honestly desire it, yet it is unavailable, it can be provided for him. This goes for the good thief.

 

[Unitas]

Ok, I know the whole Dogma, Doctrine, tradition, Extraordinary/Universal/Ordinay Magisterium thing is a little confusing. So let me try to help all those who are a little confused.

Let us use another example. How about the issue of female priests?

Now, say His Holiness Benedict XVI sees that there is a growing confusion over the idea of ordaining women to the priesthood. He might write an encyclical that says,

“Christ only chose male Apostles, who were the priests, therefore only men can be priests.”

In saying this, his encyclical would be part of the Universal Magisterium because it teaches what the Church has always taught. It does not introduce anything new, it merely restates the Tradition of the Church in this matter. Therefore, the encyclical is infallible.

But lets say that his encyclical didnt clear up the matter over female priests, and the Holy Father wants to define a male-only priesthood once and for all. He can do one of two things- he could call a Dogmatic Ecumenical Council which will address this issue. The Council will issue a Dogma saying that it is a matter of faith that only men can be ordained and that it is sacramentaly impossible for women to be priests. Or, Benedict might just make an Ex Cathedra declaration saying,

“By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority as Supreme Pontiff , We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed Dogma that it is sacramentaly impossible for a woman to recieve the Sacrament of Holy Orders.”

Notice something about this- We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed Dogma- it is stated outright that this is a declaration of a Dogma. There is no if ands or buts about it- the Holy Father has bluntly stated that he is defining an issue and making it Dogma. He has issued an infallible statement, and should anyone deny it then anathema sit.

Both the Dogma issued by the Council and the declaration made by the Pope are then part of the Extraordinary Magisterium and are infallible.

Now, lets say there is a priest, we will call him Fr. X, who says,

“Women cannot be priests because the Pope says so”.

What Fr. X says is not wrong- he agrees that women cannot be priests- but it is not in accordance with tradition either, since the established doctrines of the Church say Christ established a male priesthood, not the Pope. Therefore, this falls into the Ordinary Magisterium. The statement made by Fr. X is not infallible, although it should be taken into consideration and not immediately dismissed. Just because what Fr. X says is not exactly what the Church has always said, doesnt make him entirely wrong.

Finally, lets say there is a Catholic professor , Mr. Z, and he says,

“Women can priests, the Church is wrong to say they cant. It IS sacramentaly possible for a women to be ordained. Why should Pope Benedict say they cant?”

So, what part of the Magisterium is Mr. Z’s statement part of? Trick question- it isnt part of the Magisterium at all. In fact, it is heresy and Mr. Z has incurred automatic excommunication- anathema sit!

Hope my poor attempt at an explaination of the Magisterium and Infallibilty didnt confuse anyone even more

I’m not questioning what’s fallible or infallible in the Church.

What I’m asking is do you think extra ecclesiam nulla sallus means all non-Catholics (jews, heretics, pagans,) are outside the Church and therefore are going to hell, yes or no?

 

[TNT]

http://www.setbb.com/exchurchofchris/images/avatars/exchurchofchris/16225294545be481f8c04d.jpgAre you guys still at it? I gotta get ready for the Super Bowl, so how about a truce til then? Sheesh.
Oh, just a reminder:
Re:

What I’m asking is do you think extra ecclesiam nulla sallus means all non-Catholics (jews, heretics, pagans,) are outside the Church and therefore are going to hell, yes or no?

There are Jesus-is-not-God-He’s-a-charlaton-Catholic…Known as the Perfidious Talmudic Jews before VaticanII and now are elder brothers & sisters.

So, YES Jews who deny their Messiah are very eligible for salvation. Makes perfect sense.

 

[lak611]

I’m not questioning what’s fallible or infallible in the Church.

What I’m asking is do you think extra ecclesiam nulla sallus means all non-Catholics (jews, heretics, pagans,) are outside the Church and therefore are going to hell, yes or no?

The understanding that I have of this dogma is that they may actually be a part of the Church, just not completely. So they may be saved by God’s grace if they are following the moral laws that they do have knowledge of.

 

[Caesar]

I’m not questioning what’s fallible or infallible in the Church.

What I’m asking is do you think extra ecclesiam nulla sallus means all non-Catholics (jews, heretics, pagans,) are outside the Church and therefore are going to hell, yes or no?

I’m not saying they are, because I personally do not know.

What I do know however is that Extra Ecclesiam nulla sallus is a Dogma, and therefore infallible. I am defending this Dogma against everyone who says that it is no longer applicable, or has been reversed, or whatever. My concern at the moment is not what it means, but that it is still an infallible statement of the Church and to deny it incurrs automatic excommunication (and I can say for a fact that those who die excommunicate do go to Hell).

Can this Dogma be interpreted or understood in ways other than it’s literal understanding? Yes, of course. But as to if any of those are correct or incorrect, I cannot say.

So my point is that this is still a Dogma, to consciously deny it is to be excommunicated (as with any Dogma), and that the 1984 Catechism (like all Catechisms) is not infallible in itself- it has articles that are part of the Infallible Universal Magisterium, it also has articles that are part of the Fallible Ordinary Magisterium and this is one of them.