B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
I know that. But your claim to know what God knows about salvation was making my blood boil a little
.Now that you corrected yourself, all is well.
- Status
.Now that you corrected yourself, all is well.
C
Caesar
Guest
Well, since Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is a Dogma of the Church, it is from God Himself, since the teachings of Christ come to us through the Divinely-given authority in the Church. Thus, since a Dogma is an infallible declaration of the Church, it is given by the authority of God.I know that. But your claim to know what God knows about salvation was making my blood boil a little
Now that you corrected yourself, all is well.
Oh, and I never corrected myself.
B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
You never used the Catechism as a source to back your statements until recently, just after you were pounded on by your fellow Catholics.
C
Caesar
Guest
Depends which Catechism to which you are reffering. In a former post I used the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, not the 1984 Catechism from John Paul II. Pius X was much more clear in stating the teachings of the Church.You never used the Catechism as a source to back your statements until recently, just after you were pounded on by your fellow Catholics.
And it really doesnt matter if I used a Catechism or not, since a Catechism is just a tool for teaching the faith, and not the faith itself. A Catechism is only correct when it accurately teaches the faith. Not the I am saying the CCC doesnt, in a way, but the prior Catechisms (the Roman Catechism of Trent, the Baltimore Catechism, and the Catechism of St. Pius X to name a few) are much more clear and precise in some areas.
B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
Your favoritism towards Pope Pious is evident and thatās fine. Thereās nothing wrong with that. I just thought the Catechism is the Catechism and it didnāt matter which one, since theyāre all Catholic.
When you said āa catechism is only correct when it accurately teaches the faithā, what do you mean? I thought the Catechism was all Catholic truth?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
from God Himself, since the teachings of Christ come to us through the Divinely-given authority in the Church. Thus, since a Dogma is an infallible declaration of the Church, it is given by the authority of God.
Oh, and I never corrected myself.But you should haveā¦Knowing that a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church is the development of dogma as we grow in grace and understanding of it, and in your agenda driven choice of a catechism that is archaic proves that you have a badly flawed understanding of your own faith.
Ahā¦ but this is your errant opinion of the current CCC and not one that is properly informed by a good knowledge of your faith.
The church has plainly stated its position on ecclesia nulla sallus, and you choose to assert some sort of elitist doctrine that is in fact plainly shown to be in error.
What? Being a faithful and obedient Catholic is not good enough for you? Seems much like a spirit of rebellion similar to that of Martin Luther to me.
C
Caesar
Guest
A Catechism is merely a tool to teach the faith. It is not an infallible proclaimation of the faith.
There are many Catechisms- mostly by Popes and Bishops over the centuries, and used to educate the faithful. It just happens that the latest Catechism put forth by the Holy See is the 1984 Catechism.
But because a Catechism is merely a tool, it is not infallible. It does not define the faith; it does not declare articles of the faith- it only teaches the faith.
A history textbook doesnt create historical facts, does it? Well, the same goes for the Catechism. Faith is not created by the Catechism, it is taught through it.
U
Unitas
Guest
Even after reading the current CCC entry on it, St. Pius Xās explanation here sounds like the same thing to me. At least, thatās just my take on it. Perhaps some people read too much into it, on both ends of the spectrum.
C
Caesar
Guest
I posted this in another thread,
Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, ect. ect. cannot be part of the Catholic Church. They do have elements of truth in them, but they are heresies. Now, individual protestants, who are ignorant of the Catholic faith but have faith God and truly wish to know the true faith and act accordingly, and have been baptized (or have that baptism of desire) can be joined to the soul of the Church- note that, not the visible Church itself, but the soul of the Church- and hence may be saved and join the Church Triumphant (after some time in purgatory though I would expect).
Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, ect. ect. cannot be part of the Catholic Church. They do have elements of truth in them, but they are heresies. Now, individual protestants, who are ignorant of the Catholic faith but have faith God and truly wish to know the true faith and act accordingly, and have been baptized (or have that baptism of desire) can be joined to the soul of the Church- note that, not the visible Church itself, but the soul of the Church- and hence may be saved and join the Church Triumphant (after some time in purgatory though I would expect).
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Iām confused (genuinely); isnāt this what everyone here has been saying, in some sense? If not, how is it different? I certainly do not think that Lutheranism, etc. (Protestant Faiths in themselves) are part of the Church. It seems to me that most here (who have cared to remain orthodox) have never implied that Protestants en-masse (Ex: the entire Southern Baptist Conference as a faith) were part of the Church, but rather on a case-by-case basis if they meet the criteria of genuine innocence of fault (for not being visibly joined to the Church), and in the sense of, as you say, being joined to the soul of the Church (since theyāre obviously not part of the visible Church). Maybe I missed something, but that seems* completely *in line, concept for concept, with CCC 846 - 848ā¦am I mistaken somehow?
C
Caesar
Guest
I just think that in comparission, older Catechisms tend to be much more clear on the subject, whereas the 1984 Catechism is more ambiguous on this subject and others.
In any case, most of the solidly orthodox priests I have talked to in this regard have told me to stay away from the 1984 Catechism in areas such as this one and use the older Catechisms.
The problem as I see it is that too many Catholics go to the extremes- either they take the Feeneyist viewpoint or they go to the other end of the spectrum and say things like āas long as your a good personā and āwhatever works for youā (you never heard these before? come to Canada then).
And then of course you have the liberal Catholics who completely disregard the Magisterium in terms of infallibilty, whereas most neo-conservative Catholics take an overblown view of it and forget that only two of the three levels of the Magisterium are infallible and whenever the Pope expresses a personal opinion he is making a Dogmatic proclaimation. Thats a whole other problemā¦
The only reliable and truly orthodox viewpoints I have seen come from the traditionalists, but then everyone else labels you as sedevacantist and schismatic even though you go to an indult Mass, and you are in error for praying in latin and thats just not in the good olā spirit of Vatican II now is it?
Ok, I got a bit off topicā¦
L
lak611
Guest
I think the explanation of the dogma by St. Pius X, from his Catechism, is very clear. Do you have any links to that Catechism? Is it available online?
C
Caesar
Guest
Yes, right here- cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/pius/pindex.htm
L
lak611
Guest
Thanks, Caesar! I just added it to my bookmarks.
M
Missa_Solemnis
Guest
12 Q: The many societies of persons who are baptized but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?
A: No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/pius/pcreed09.htm
Pretty simpleā¦
L
lak611
Guest
But then there is this: ā29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does Godās will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvationā
M
Missa_Solemnis
Guest
24 Q: To be saved, is it enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church?
A: No, to be saved it is not enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church; it is necessary to be a living member.
25 Q: Who are the living members of the Church?
A: The living members of the Church are the just, and the just alone, that is, those who are actually in the grace of God.
26 Q: And who are the dead members?
A: The dead members of the Church are the faithful in mortal sin.
27 Q: Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A: No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
Yes, those who through no fault of their own are seperated from the Catholic Church (AND live lives free from mortal sin) can possibly attain salvation.
This is basically Protestant Children, the mentally disabled, or Protestant Adults who never once open a book on Catholicism or investigate its claims.
I suggest reading the question and answer you posted, in the context of the rest of His All Holinessā Catechism.
L
lak611
Guest
I would say that this ācouldā apply to many Protestants because although there are converts to all religions, most people, Catholic or Protestant, do not investigate other religions. Those here on these forums are the exception, not the rule. Most people belong to whatever religion they do because that is how they were raised. If somebody had Baptist parents, most likely he would be a Baptist too. Unless he married a Catholic, or had some serious problems in the Baptist church, he would probably stay Baptist and not study the Catholic Church.
U
Unitas
Guest
off-topic
Call me a simpleton, but I really like the Q+A format.
I just learned that there is a Q+A format for the new CCC but itās a supplement book. I think it would really help if they just included it. I never knew it existed until someone just now handed it to me.
on topic
Perhaps if all of us knew about and read (including me) the Q+A stuff, us Catholics wouldnāt be arguing about this lol.
Call me a simpleton, but I really like the Q+A format.
I just learned that there is a Q+A format for the new CCC but itās a supplement book. I think it would really help if they just included it. I never knew it existed until someone just now handed it to me.
on topic
Perhaps if all of us knew about and read (including me) the Q+A stuff, us Catholics wouldnāt be arguing about this lol.
J
Jedinovice
Guest
Just to clarify a little, I never came across Radical traditionalists until I dropped in Catholic discussion forums. Then I found they dominated the forums! I am sure there are many various forms of Catholics that post but I find, still, the Latin only Traditionalists dominate. Even if they do not dominate in terms of number, they do in terms of power and setting the tone. I think less radical, less canon law obsessive types tend to give up after a while and wander off. I know I did!
Example: I found what I thought was a moderate Catholic discussion forum (after finding masses of super-Traditionalist ones.) But, bit by bit the radical āNo Salvation outside the Churchā āTraditionalistsā came to dominate more and more. I had one discussion with a super-Latin only, everyone except me and my mate Derek (and his pet tortoise āTommyā) is a heretic and wet Vatican II liberal. He really was the most extreme, obsessive, Radical Traditionalist on the board bar none! He literally advocated, in one discussion I had with him, the laity turn up to Mass, say nothing, do nothing, leave and behave as sheep; āLest they take away from the elevation of the priest.ā I gave up in disgust with him! I dropped in a week later just out of āroad crashā curiousity. He had been made one of the moderators.
Nuff said.
Real Catholics donāt argue over the fine points of canon law and the encyplical āVesper Manderinaā by Pope Pius MCCXII from 1341 which states, āNo-one may be saved who wears a ginger toupee.ā Well, not on a daily basis anyway. They go off and do things. Example: Last night I was at a meeting of my community in which we gave personal sharing, we prayed over one another (oh no, how Protestant!!) and prepared for our next evangelism outreach. One girl who was a visitor loved it and it solidified her resolved to join us fully. Last night confirmed (again) for me that forums are largely a distraction from real Christian living. I am sure that many non-radical Traditionalists post on these forums but I find the āsuper-piousā (ācold is Godās way of telling us to burn more Protestants!ā) have the loudest voices on ANY English speaking Catholic forums and, thus, without knowing this, people who come in from the outside can get the wrong idea. (I mean, I donāt know any Catholics outside of forums who even use the word āPious!ā Holy, yes. Reverent, yes. Pious??!!!)
Forums can be useful but youāve got to bear in mind that they tend to attract obsessiveās. I also know form bitter experience there is no persuading the super-radical-Traditionalist-Fenneite types. Itās a bit like trying to persuade James White. I used to try and then realised how much time I wasting. If certain Catholics wonāt hear the Vatican, the Pope or the catachism they wonāt hear you. Iām not trying to be āmeanā Iām just trying to make sure people take their forum experiences, shall we say, in context. Yeah, I am being a bit British ironic but I am making a serious point that the āflavourā of theology exposed on Catholic forums is not representative of Catholicism worldwide. Thereās a reason for that other than the rest of the world are all limp wrested liberals.
I say, if you want to know the faith, read the Catachism and the apologists - Scott Hahn, Dave Armstrong, Gary Hoge, etc, etc.
Oh, sorry, theyāre liberals. I forgot.
Have fun! Carry on!
Example: I found what I thought was a moderate Catholic discussion forum (after finding masses of super-Traditionalist ones.) But, bit by bit the radical āNo Salvation outside the Churchā āTraditionalistsā came to dominate more and more. I had one discussion with a super-Latin only, everyone except me and my mate Derek (and his pet tortoise āTommyā) is a heretic and wet Vatican II liberal. He really was the most extreme, obsessive, Radical Traditionalist on the board bar none! He literally advocated, in one discussion I had with him, the laity turn up to Mass, say nothing, do nothing, leave and behave as sheep; āLest they take away from the elevation of the priest.ā I gave up in disgust with him! I dropped in a week later just out of āroad crashā curiousity. He had been made one of the moderators.
Nuff said.
Real Catholics donāt argue over the fine points of canon law and the encyplical āVesper Manderinaā by Pope Pius MCCXII from 1341 which states, āNo-one may be saved who wears a ginger toupee.ā Well, not on a daily basis anyway. They go off and do things. Example: Last night I was at a meeting of my community in which we gave personal sharing, we prayed over one another (oh no, how Protestant!!) and prepared for our next evangelism outreach. One girl who was a visitor loved it and it solidified her resolved to join us fully. Last night confirmed (again) for me that forums are largely a distraction from real Christian living. I am sure that many non-radical Traditionalists post on these forums but I find the āsuper-piousā (ācold is Godās way of telling us to burn more Protestants!ā) have the loudest voices on ANY English speaking Catholic forums and, thus, without knowing this, people who come in from the outside can get the wrong idea. (I mean, I donāt know any Catholics outside of forums who even use the word āPious!ā Holy, yes. Reverent, yes. Pious??!!!)
Forums can be useful but youāve got to bear in mind that they tend to attract obsessiveās. I also know form bitter experience there is no persuading the super-radical-Traditionalist-Fenneite types. Itās a bit like trying to persuade James White. I used to try and then realised how much time I wasting. If certain Catholics wonāt hear the Vatican, the Pope or the catachism they wonāt hear you. Iām not trying to be āmeanā Iām just trying to make sure people take their forum experiences, shall we say, in context. Yeah, I am being a bit British ironic but I am making a serious point that the āflavourā of theology exposed on Catholic forums is not representative of Catholicism worldwide. Thereās a reason for that other than the rest of the world are all limp wrested liberals.
I say, if you want to know the faith, read the Catachism and the apologists - Scott Hahn, Dave Armstrong, Gary Hoge, etc, etc.
Oh, sorry, theyāre liberals. I forgot.
Have fun! Carry on!
- Status