M
mrs_abbott
Guest
:yup:
- Status
P
Prayer_Warrior
Guest
Caesar, I have enjoyed many of your posts, but you do not seem to be even aware that you could wrong in how you have interpreted the dogma of which you speak. Or maybe, not so much the dogma about “outside the Church there is no salvation” but rather the definition of what “outside the Church” means… Did it occur to you that the Church has recognized that lay people through the ages have misunderstood the meaning of this dogma and sought to clarify it? The catechism doesn’t deny that all salvation will come through Catholic Church because Christ is at its head–which is what dogma says, is it not? However, it more clearly defines who belongs to said Church. And that is the part you seem to refuse to acknowledge.
It seems to me if Pope Boniface infallibly defined that all human creatures are subject to the Roman Pontiff then that was our first hint that all human creatures belong to the Catholic Church. Unless they reject the Church, in which case, they are truly “outside the Catholic Church”. And yes, there are those “protestants, heretics, blasphemers, Mohammedans, hindus, buddhists, Jews, pagans, satanists, animals, and whoever else,” who do reject the Church. There are also baptized Catholics who reject the Church.
M
mark_a
Guest
I heard Jimmy Akin say that our understanding of dogma developes over time.
C
Caesar
Guest
Yes, our understanding of Dogma might change (for the good or for the bad), but the Dogma remains constant.
L
lak611
Guest
I agree with this.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
To be a good Christian, you have love God with all your heart, body, mind, soul. If you love God, you would obey his commandments. Failure do follow the commandments of God, would make Christian hypocritical. This applies to all Christians, Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox.
K
KindredSoul
Guest
As for me, I will admit that I said one thing very wrong, and I want to apologize to everyone…when I said “It’s the only thing I knew couldn’t be true.” That was far too much an “I” statement, and Caesar, you’re right: If in fact it were true that “Outside of the Church there is no salvation” means that no unchanging Protestants, no matter how sincere, can ever be saved, my personal feelings wouldn’t change that. Had I stayed outside of the Church simply due to my disliking it, I’d have been in the very category of Protestants I mentioned in that post. In the end, I’m just glad that’s not the only interpretation the Church has left of that Dogma; we’re still supposed to try to evangelize all people, as the Catechism says, but it will help us to bear our failures (when someone just won’t be convinced) without having a mental breakdown in heartache and sorrow.
So yes, if the Church had cut off all other interpretations of that Dogma (which I agree with you %100 is a true Dogma which we must all believe, I’m just not in agreement of what exactly it means to be outside of the Church–and yes, by the Church I mean the Catholic Church headed by the Pope), it would be selfish of me to disagree just because I didn’t like it.
As far as different interpretations of the Dogma go, it does seem that this Dogma is open to certain interpretations unless the Church closes it. Even the Catechism doesn’t deny the dogma in the least, but just interprets what “Outside the Church” means in the less strict sense, just as many in this thread, including myself do. And, incidentally, even if the Catechism isn’t infallible in every sense, it wouldn’t seem that God would let His one true Church release a teaching tool (which God in His wisdom knew and the Pope and Magesterium intended would be widely used and believed by Catholics) that would lead Catholics to hell, so it doesn’t seem the Catechism’s interpretation of the dogma could be blasphemous or rebellious. It’s possible the stricter interpretation is right (though I pray not) but in this case, I don’t think the looser interpretation constitutes a rejection of the Dogma (and thus a lack of obedience to the Church).
If the Church ever does declare infallibly that only the strictest interpretation of the Dogma is true, I’ll have no choice but to submit. The Church’s infallible declarations are always right…I’ll simply have a heart torn and broken like never before, so I hope that’s not the true interpretation, and will continue to hope unless the Church declares that it’s no use hoping.
C
Caesar
Guest
I’ll tell you all something- you shouldnt be upset or afraid to believe that someone might go to Hell. We are assured that some day, maybe not in our lifetimes but certainly after death, we will understand and rejoice in the wisdom and mercy of God’s designs.
Trust me when I say that there is a far better way to help non-Catholics then to argue over how a Dogma is to be understood- it is called prayer. Pray for their conversions and honestly believe that your prayer has value.
Trust me when I say that there is a far better way to help non-Catholics then to argue over how a Dogma is to be understood- it is called prayer. Pray for their conversions and honestly believe that your prayer has value.
R
rr1213
Guest
Isn’t this the key issue? If the Catholic Church cannot err in the teaching of faith and morals, which seems to be what you Catholics believe, then the teaching of the CCC on this subject either must be right or the Church has erred. Sure, intellectually, I understand the distinction Caesar is making that the CCC is a teaching tool and, to take his word for it since I don’t know better, the “gloss” (for lack of a better word) which the Catechism puts on this subject regarding the possible salvation of non-Catholics in certain narrowly-defined instances has not been infallably defined anywhere. Ok. If that’s true, and that “gloss” turns out to be incorrect, then what kind of infallable Church promulgates an erroneous teaching tool to its faithful? The American bishops and the Pope have recommended the CCC (maybe it goes beyond that even). If the “gloss” is incorrect–if this teaching is incorrect–then the Church has mislead its English speaking faithful on a serious matter of faith and morals. Sort of how the NO uses the translation “for all” instead of “for many” when the Latin clearly says “for many.” (BTW, the Anglicans use “for many” in their liturgy).
M
MrS
Guest
The Catholic Church recieved the Truth, protects the Truth, and is the Truth… without error.
The Magisterium is empowered to teach the Truth,… Feed the sheep.
The former is perfect… the latter is imperfect.
However.
when the teaching is declared as Truth (only by the Pope or the Pope and the bishops in union with him), Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would prevent any error. The criteria for this type of teaching is clear and precise… not broar and/or random as come Catholics might think.
Thus it is not the Magisterium that declares Truth, it is the Holy Spirit working throught them (as He did with the Canon of Scripture)
The CCC is simply a tool which the Church can use to help us, in the trenches, get a better grasp of things, help us better understand, and maybe we will progess as better Christians… as would any Christian who could be greatly helped by acquiring their own copy of the CCC.
.
S
Sixtus
Guest
Of course they are
M
mark_a
Guest
I’m not sure I understand. Do you mean the results of the dogma remain unchanged?
Could you provide some simple examples for me to try to understand?
C
Caesar
Guest
No, if the Dogma says “Outside the Church there is no salvation” it cannot be changed at a later date to say “Outside the Church there is some salvation”. The Dogma cannot change and it cannot be reversed.
M
MrS
Guest
One that the Lord wants all to belong to… even you.
Besides… it is a whole lot better than anything you are a part of.
says who…??? Says the Lord Himself in our (not yours) Bible
One Lord… One Faith… One Baptism
also… the same kind of Church that encourages those posters here (also teaching “tools”) to try and make headway with you. We are not perfect either, in case you didn’t notice…
.
C
chosen_people
Guest
So then is being a Catholic or a Protestant just a matter of personal preference with no essential religious differences between them? Do different Christian sects try to “convert” followers from one Christian sect to another?
C
Contarini
Guest
You should only try to convert people to the True Church. Thus, I would try to convert people to Trinitarian Christianity in general. Within that, I would want people to come to sounder theological views, but not to “convert” per se. In fact I’d much rather that Baptists (to mention a form of Christianity with which I have many disagreements) stay Baptist (as long as they could do so with integrity) and move the Baptist tradition in a sounder direction, rather than becoming Anglican.
Edwin
M
MrS
Guest
Perhaps I tend to agree… I would rather have my Baptist son stay Baptist… love the Lord… study 66 books… and continue with his Bible College Education… then have him wander off into the land of the lukewarm Christian.
BUT
How could he move his Baptist tradition (
there’s that word again 
) in a sounder direction than towards Catholicism. That would be perhaps a temporary (at least) compromise… and there should be no compromise on the Truth.Hence if I can have my 'druthers… I pray that he reject his “Traditions” and get on the road to Rome as soon as possible… for his soul and the souls of my grandchildren.
.
B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
Exactly! Baby steps are good. Plus, people tend to respond better to example than words.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
? Do different Christian sects try to “convert” followers from one Christian sect to another?Sure they do. It’s semi-jokingly referred to as “sheep stealing”.
I don’t think I’d agree with that bolded statement CP.
Shalom Elechim
- Status