To a Roman Catholic are Protestants good Christians?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chosen_people
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kaycee said:
I thought Limbo was going away? :eek:
Click to expand...
That was a rumor, and a date was even set for the Pope to “officialy” denounce it, but the day came and went months ago and nothing happened, no word of it was ever made.
 
rr1213 said:
I guess after eight pages of this discussion I am totally dissuaded of any misconceptions I might have had that there is clarity of doctrine among Catholics due to the teaching charism of the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry we haven’t given you a clearer picture. Yes, there is obviously much confusion, even among ourselves.
 
I don’t think that much good is coming out of this thread at this point. Maybe it’s time to pull the plug…
 
Church_Militant said:
Agreed…it is “pure basic stuff” and that is my point. The dogma has been explained as it is .There is no justification in making a case that it is ambiguous (because it’s not!). If you are in obedience to the Pope and the magisterium then you don’t assert things that are in error…and they are in error.
Click to expand...
The Dogma of Extra Ecclesiam non est salus is, of course, perfectly correct.

The 1984 Catechism is not infallible - fact. In my personal opinion, the CCC explanation of this dogma is ambiguous.

That is why I prefer the Baltimore Catechism explanation which I quoted a few posts up. It says it as it is, not in an ecumenical Protestant-pleasing fashion.
 
Caesar said:
That was a rumor, and a date was even set for the Pope to “officialy” denounce it, but the day came and went months ago and nothing happened, no word of it was ever made.
Click to expand...
Nothing was needed… the published discussions clarified it very well. there was no need to define it one way or the other since it is not and never has been dogma.
 
Resurrexit said:
The Dogma of Extra Ecclesiam non est salus is, of course, perfectly correct.

The 1984 Catechism is not infallible - fact. In my personal opinion, the CCC explanation of this dogma is ambiguous.

That is why I prefer the Baltimore Catechism explanation which I quoted a few posts up. It says it as it is, not in an ecumenical Protestant-pleasing fashion.
Click to expand...
I think we need an infallible canon of infallible catechisms. 😃
 
Resurrexit said:
The Dogma of Extra Ecclesiam non est salus is, of course, perfectly correct.

The 1984 Catechism is not infallible - fact. In my personal opinion, the CCC explanation of this dogma is ambiguous.

That is why I prefer the Baltimore Catechism explanation which I quoted a few posts up. It says it as it is, not in an ecumenical Protestant-pleasing fashion.
Click to expand...
So is the 1984 version not approved by the Vatican?
 
mikew262 said:
So is the 1984 version not approved by the Vatican?
Click to expand...
Oh really.

Yes. The 1984 Catechism is an official Vatican-approved EXPLANATION of Dogma.

Take an example. Someone explains to you a dogma, such as the Trinity. The Trinitarian Dogma itself is infallible, but that person’s explanation may have holes in it.

It is the same thing here. So the 1984 MAY have errors in it. Whether it actually does or not, I’m not sure. But IMO older catechisms are clearer.
 
Resurrexit said:
Oh really.

Yes. The 1984 Catechism is an official Vatican-approved EXPLANATION of Dogma.

Take an example. Someone explains to you a dogma, such as the Trinity. The Trinitarian Dogma itself is infallible, but that person’s explanation may have holes in it.

It is the same thing here. So the 1984 MAY have errors in it. Whether it actually does or not, I’m not sure. But IMO
Click to expand...
older catechisms are clearer.The operative phrase.

And since you are not a bishop, or pope…
 
Church_Militant said:
The operative phrase.

And since you are not a bishop, or pope…
Click to expand...
Indeed. But what is fact is that the 1984 Catechism is not infallible, and may have errors in it. The same goes for every other Catechism.

As we’re on the topic, here is what the CCC actually says on the issue.
“Outside the Church there is no salvation” - How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Click to expand...
"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.* Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it"*** (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 14).
Click to expand...
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Click to expand...
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).
Click to expand...
“Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him (Hebrews 11:6, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men” (Second Vatican Council, Ad Gentes, 1).
Click to expand...
See, the issue is pretty clear, even here.

Those who don’t know the truth, through no fault of their own, MAY be saved (not will, may), are informal members of the church via Baptism of desire.

No at least implicit baptism by desire = not in the church = no salvation.
 
Resurrexit said:
Oh really.

Yes. The 1984 Catechism is an official Vatican-approved EXPLANATION of Dogma.

Take an example. Someone explains to you a dogma, such as the Trinity. The Trinitarian Dogma itself is infallible, but that person’s explanation may have holes in it.

It is the same thing here. So the 1984 MAY have errors in it. Whether it actually does or not, I’m not sure. But IMO older catechisms are clearer.
Click to expand...
Actually, I went back and looked at the CCC, and it was approved by the Pope in 1992.
 
Resurrexit said:
Indeed. But what is fact is that the 1984 Catechism is not infallible, and may have errors in it. The same goes for every other Catechism.

As we’re on the topic, here is what the CCC actually says on the issue.

See, the issue is pretty clear, even here.

Those who don’t know the truth, through no fault of their own, MAY be saved (not will, may), are informal members of the church via Baptism of desire.

No at least implicit baptism by desire = not in the church = no salvation.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it proves my point. Salvation is possible for those outside the Church based on the critieria stated.
 
mikew262 said:
Actually, I went back and looked at the CCC, and it was approved by the Pope in 1992.
Click to expand...
Your point being?

Papal approval doesn’t cover it with infallibility. It still may have a multitude of errors in it.
 
Resurrexit said:
Indeed. But what is fact is that the 1984 Catechism is not infallible, and may have errors in it. The same goes for every other Catechism.

As we’re on the topic, here is what the CCC actually says on the issue.

See, the issue is pretty clear, even here.

Those who don’t know the truth, through no fault of their own, MAY be saved (not will, may), are informal members of the church via Baptism of desire.

No at least implicit baptism by desire = not in the church = no salvation.
Click to expand...
MAY applies to everybody, Catholic or not. I may obtain salvation, but then again maybe I won’t. However, I hope I do. 😃
 
Resurrexit said:
Your point being?

Papal approval doesn’t cover it with infallibility. It still may have a multitude of errors in it.
Click to expand...
I have nothing to say to that. I can only shake my head and chuckle. I mean no disrespect, but I’m just amazed.
 
mikew262 said:
Yes, and it proves my point. Salvation is possible for those outside the Church based on the critieria stated.
Click to expand...
I think this is just a difference of terminology - we probably agree with each other.

Those criteria (ignorance and seeking the truth) ‘cause’ baptism by desire. If someone is baptised by desire, they are informally part of the church, and may be saved.

If you’re not part of the church, you’re damned, but this doesn’t mean that only those who call themselves Catholics can be saved. This is what the Baltimore Cathechism says, and what I follow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top