Truth: is it relative or not?

[Crocus]

Yes I read that article. It doesn’t describe who came up with the idea, which was my primary question.

Short answer: Jesus.
Longer answer, as explained in the article.

You picked out a few scripture you thought did not apply. (Did you say upthread you do not subscribe to sola scriptura?)

What did you think of:

For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” ( Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” ( Sermons 131, 10).

 

[philophoser]

I’m sorry, I looked up both of those letters at newadvent.org and didn’t see either of the quotes given. Is newadvent.org not a good source for Catholic thought?

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050659.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102131.htm

 

[Crocus]

would be saved, but would undergo additional time in purgatory because they couldn’t confess their sins to a priest and receive absolution?

Does it say that?

they would go to hell because they weren’t ignorant of the faith but hadn’t received sacraments from a priest

Does it say that?

 

[philophoser]

Does it say that?

Yes
“Since the sacraments are the ordinary means through which Christ offers the grace necessary for salvation, and the Catholic Church that Christ established is the ordinary minister of those sacraments, it is appropriate to state that salvation comes through the Church.”

Does it say that?

And yes
“The Church recognizes that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation.”

 

[Pattylt]

This is an interesting question for me, too @philophoser. I don’t remember how long Japan had to go without Priests but it was several generations, no?

While they could continue to baptize their children, the other sacraments would be unavailable to them, including confession. Is there a clause for confession by desire as their is for baptism by desire? Would perfect contrition cover them? I’m sure the Church has some discussions on Catholics completely separated from availability of a Priest so if any links, I’d appreciate it! It’s a good question from my point of view! Thanks!

 

[Crocus]

Short answer: God does not play gotcha. God is above all merciful. What is not possible, is not possible.

 

[philophoser]

So God provides salvation outside of the narrow methods described in Catholic dogma? Thank you, I agree

 

[Pattylt]

I’m sure it’s not a gotcha! I assume those Catholics in Japan that deserved heaven got there. I’m just curious if the Church has answered or dealt with this scenario. I would think it has and I’m just curious what She says.

 

[Crocus]

I’m sorry, I looked up both of those letters at newadvent.org and didn’t see either of the quotes given. Is newadvent.org not a good source for Catholic thought?

Reference this site’s article on Papal Infallibility that was linked a few posts up. Article quotes St Cyprian, epistle 54, see #14. Note wording of the catholic.com reference is simpler.

I had a hard time finding it too, as the reference number doesn’t match. The full epistle deserves a good long study. Lots to think about from this early Church Father.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htmh

After such things as these, moreover, they still dare — a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.

This confirms Peter as head of the Church, its unity and the surety of faith (infallible in teaching) of the prime apostle.

 

[EndTimes]

So God provides salvation outside of the narrow methods described in Catholic dogma?

I’ve the strong feeling that your ‘narrow methods’ - lack depth wrt Catholic Teachings

Could you provide any specifics?

_

 

[Crocus]

I’m sure it’s not a gotcha! I assume those Catholics in Japan that deserved heaven got there. I’m just curious if the Church has answered or dealt with this scenario. I would think it has and I’m just curious what She says.

I think the link posted earlier says it pretty well, gives quotes from the Catechism. A full reading and study of the Catechism would give the bigger picture. But hope this helps.

What "No Salvation Outside the Church" Means | Catholic Answers Magazine

God is judge. Being all-knowing, He will separate the innocent from the guilty, the true from the false, the humble from the proud, the sharp from the dull.

 

[Crocus]

So God provides salvation outside of the narrow methods described in Catholic dogma? Thank you, I agree

Take all the time you need to read the links.
It’s important.

 

[EndTimes]

To the Billions of Believers in a Father Creator -
including and resembling the Abrahamic God -
GOD is an Absolute.

To the Christians… Jesus IS TRUTH…

Re: Relativism…

This Question is constantly raised…

On another thread - this was posted:

Relativist: “Nothing is always true.”
Me: “Is this always true?”
Relativist: “Yes.”
Me: “You are contradicting yourself. You said that nothing is always true, but if you are right then what you said can’t be always true.”
Relativist: “Well… then no, it isn’t always true”
Me: “So you are refuting yourself. If there is even one thing that is always true, what you said is false, tertium non datur .”
Relativist: “Well… logic is relative, so I have no reason for believing what you say.”
Me: facepalm

 

[philophoser]

This confirms Peter as head of the Church, its unity and the surety of faith (infallible in teaching) of the prime apostle.

This does nothing of the sort. The “quote” written in the article, “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?”, appears to be a purposeful mistranslation perpetrated by an author named Karl Keating to “prove” exactly this, but the text says nothing of the sort.

Elsewhere, Cyprian explicitly denied the authority of one man, the bishop of Rome, to decide truth. In a dispute with bishop Stephen of Rome over the rebaptizing of heretics, he says this about the “authority” of the bishop in Rome:

“No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.”

Later in this letter, he quotes 83 early church writers as evidence to contradict bishop Stephen’s judgment in the matter of baptizing heretics back into the church, and he denies that Stephen’s pronouncement is correct. Thus he explicitly denies the “authority” of the Roman bishop and rightly declares that Christ is the ONLY ONE who has the power to make bishops and to judge the conduct of these bishops.

 

[philophoser]

Even more egregious is that Keating also appears to be the first person to quote Augustine as saying “Rome has spoken, the case is concluded”, a misquotation that would make a college undergraduate blush if he were caught doing so.
The actual quote is “for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise.” That is, he takes the final appeal to the bishop in Rome to be the last gasp of this specific matter, a matter that is now concluded. He’s not saying that the bishop in Rome makes it true by fiat. He’s saying “the appeals are exhausted, this matter is at an end.”

Lest anyone erroneously think that Augustine actually does believe that “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded”, just two years later there is another disagreement in the African church on the matter of Pelagianism where they seek the outside opinion of the bishop in Rome, Zosimus. Zosimus takes the side of the other party in the dispute, concluding the proceedings with this very telling quote: “So great is our [church in Rome’s] authority that no decision of ours can be subjected to review…Such is the authority of Peter and the venerable decrees of the church that all questions concerning human and divine laws, as well as all disciplinary matters, must be referred to Rome for ultimate resolution.”
Let’s pay attention to who exactly is claiming the authority of the church in Rome. The church in Rome is! And glorying in this wondrous power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The conclusion of this disagreement is that the bishops in Africa judged the Rome view to be invalid, and remained in open disagreement with “the great and wonderful authority of the church in Rome” until bishop Zosimus CHANGED HIS VIEW TO CORRESPOND TO THAT OF THE AFRICAN BISHOPS.

Men are fallible, wherever they live and whatever hat they wear. As Cyprian rightly says, the “Lord Jesus Christ…is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.” The fact that the bishop who lives in Rome has claimed this power for himself does not make it the case, any more than the fact that the bishop in Rome claims to never err in matters of doctrine does not make it the case.

 

[philophoser]

God is judge. Being all-knowing, He will separate the innocent from the guilty, the true from the false, the humble from the proud, the sharp from the dull.

I absolutely agree with this. The question is, doesn’t this contradict the Catholic church’s teaching that salvation comes through the sacraments they administer and they alone have the right to administer them?
To me, the truth of what you are saying (God is the judge and He saves whom he will save) specifically falsifies the Catholic position that you must receive certain sacraments from certain men in order to be saved. Or am I still reading the “no salvation outside the church” position wrong? I believe I’m right in saying that in areas where there is a Catholic presence and a Catholic priest, one must be baptized by this priest or desire to be baptized by this priest in order to be saved, correct?

Re: Relativism…

This has bearing on your post as well. If the Truth (absolute and unchanging) is that God is the judge and He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, then the “truth” that salvation only comes from within the Catholic church is not True, but false. In this matter, the “truth” that the Catholic church claims to possess would be relative truth, a denial of the absolute Truth found in the Bible.

 

[EndTimes]

This has bearing on your post as well. If the Truth (absolute and unchanging) is that God is the judge and He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, then the “truth” that salvation only comes from within the Catholic church is not True, but false.

That attempted ‘logical’ argument fails, for its understanding of the Church is False

The Church is The Mystical Body of Christ.

And Jesus is at its Head…

At the very core of the Church is God
Salvation comes ‘through’ the Church - ill-understood as well

Non-Catholics are not barred from Salvation…

_

 

[philophoser]

Salvation comes ‘through’ the Church - ill-understood as well

Non-Catholics are not barred from Salvation…

From what I read in that article, there are people saved through God’s grace and the sacraments of the Catholic church and certain people of the invincibly ignorant class who seek God and do good works. Is there some other group or class of people who can be saved?

 

[Poet]

@philosopher, what is it you think you need to save your brother’s children from? What ill is going to befall them in this life or the next if he ‘indoctrinates’ them with Catholic belief?

 

[o_mlly]

What is the logical answer to this, and what is the Catholic answer?

The logical answer to an apparent ambiguity is to look to the whole instead of the particular. Heresy, the choosing and elevation of the particular against the whole, results in error. The truth of Scripture is subtext. The correct interpretation of Scripture removes the ambiguity of the particular and presents the whole as coherent and consistent.