L
- Status
O
otjm
Guest
If you really want to be part of this conversation, you might want to define what you mean by “out” (with supporting documents" and what you mean by in"with supporting documents), since you seem to be implying that there has been a change in truth aobut them.
O
otjm
Guest
Maybe, in order to move this conversation forward, you can assist us all - and yourself - by showing what definition either that Boniface gave, or has been given subsequently to the term “be subject to”.
I seem to get the gist that you are taking this to mean actual membership in the Church, or something that is closely alligned to that, but recent teachings of the Magisterium seem to reject that as too narrow.
Whatever - have you come across anything which specifically defines what he means; and is such definition absolute (meaning that there can be no expansion/nuancing of the definition)?
R
ron77nyc
Guest
Before Vatican II
Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 - 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423)
Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 - 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)
Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)
Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 - 1903): “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus)
Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 - 1922): “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)
Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 - 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation…Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)
Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 - 1958): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.” (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)
Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…"
Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
The Catholic Catechism today:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm
**The Church and non-Christians **
839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329
840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
is this saying that the muslims are saved without accepting that Jesus is Lord and Savior? i dont think so. i think is just stating that the plan of salvation is also for them. it just doesnt explain how. i dont have a problem about the Jews on the statement above.
i think the main problem here is that the Church has not taking definitive stand on this. but i dont think the Church is wrong in leave it up to God to decide their salvation. i do believe that many will come to the realization that Jesus is our Savior along the years. those who dont only God can judge them. we need to worry about ourselves. we need to make sure we continue in the Faith that was given to us through the Lord’s Church. leave the dissobedient to our Lord. He is the One to decide their fate.
during the JPII, because of his statements and inclusion of all religions, many came to believe that the CC is just another church among others. he never made clear what the
CC is. today, BXVI is trying to repair this and he has been veemently attacked for saying the CC is the True Church.
R
ron77nyc
Guest
is this saying that the muslims are saved without accepting that Jesus is Lord and Savior? i dont think so. i think is just stating that the plan of salvation is also for them. it just doesnt explain how. i dont have a problem about the Jews on the statement above.
I agree with everything you say but if prior to Vatican II, you or I or a priest or a bishop would have said what the catechism now says, we would be declared heretics. You had to be Catholic. Only Catholics were going to heaven. Everyone else was excluded.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
yes. agreed. but i still think that the Church teaches that. only is no longer emphasized like before. the Church seems to remain quiet on this issue. the Church has been in a tremendous pressure to change her doctrines from protestants and pagans. what can we do? the Catholics have not been very supportive of the Church either. we seem very divided between liberals and conservatives… there was a time that what the Church said would simply be accepted, no arguments. i just cant undestand what happened after this Council that put the Church in such desiree. maybe if the Pope called another Council to undo the damage would be a solution. this time no outsiders just Catholics and Orthodox.
P
pnewton
Guest
Not true. In fact, we have the case of Father Feeney who was excommunicated in 1953 for refusing a definition of 1949 that pretty much
In 1863, Pope Pius IX.
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm
I am just saying that Vatican II did not happen in a vacuum. The understanding of this doctrine of the Church has been developed as more data comes to light. History always yields more data and will continue to do so.
U
una_fides
Guest
I’m glad you welcome corrections. Please consider that the Church is and has always been the fullness of truth. You can’t say that someone is “missing out” on the fullness of truth if they do not accept modern teachings because to say so would also be to say that the Church prior to V2 was also missing out on something that V2 later brought to the Church. If V2 changed the Church’s teachings on certain dogmas, and if one accepted these changes as legitimate, then yes, one could say the Church prior to V2 was “missing something.” However, to say that Church changed the meanings or understandings of dogmas or changed dogmas themselves is to say that the Church has slipped into heresy, and I hope that you are not saying that. The Church IS the embodiment of Tradition and to her alone has been entrusted the fullness of the truth. If anything, I think IMHO that V2 has blurred the lines between truth and error with its many vague statements and those who held to the faith prior to V2 are in much better shape than those who try to rely in V2 isolated from the past Tradition of the Church, without which V2 is nothing.
I was in no way being uncharitable. I was simply making logical deductions from what you said. You claimed that to not follow V2 was to be “lacking” something. Those before V2 did not have the teachings of V2. Therefore, those before V2 “lacked something” that IYO V2 later revealed. The problem with that opinion, as I pointed out, is that popes made infallible declarations and Councils have ruled infallibly that those outside the Church (heretics, schismatics, Jews, pagans, Muslims, etc) cannot inherit eternal life unless they come into full communion with the Catholic Church before death. The constant teaching of the Church to me seems quite clear on this matter. It seems, however, that the modern Church is trying to redefine these matters giving them a different sense than how the Church understood them previously. I am trying to reconcile the two, and so far, no one has come close to doing so on here.
You are misunderstanding what I meant, and on second reading, I can see how you took it. I basically was attacking the approach that I’ve seen many do and which it seemed you were doing, which is to start with Vatican II and then approach pre-Vatican II teachings interpreting them with that mentality instead of the other way around. Your previous comments demonstrated that you were taking such an approach and that approach was what I was saying was not the correct one to take.
If you find no conflict, then please explain the clear differences in wording and meaning in the past declarations and the present. I cannot seem to get the two to fit together. Again, starting with the constant teachings from pre-Vatican II and understanding that sense and then approaching V2 writrings. You first must understand what has already been taught before approaching what the Church is teaching today. You must at least admit the wording is drastically different and with a much different emphasis. I’ve been trying to reconcile the two but have not been able and no one on this thread has been able to shed any light as of yet either it seems.
The Church cannot change her teachings. Do you think that the current Magisterium is trying to apply a different sense or understanding to her previous teachings on NSOC?
U
una_fides
Guest
So you are basically saying that since you can’t find this past infallible declaration in any modern Church documents that the modern Church no longer teaches this? To be blunt, that opinion is pure modernism. The Church cannot simply drop an infallible teaching. You are saying that the Catholic Church no longer teaches something that she previously taught:
Pope Boniface VIII. Unam Sanctam – 18 November 1302: (infallible papal declaration)“Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2] … Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that** it is absolutely necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff**. papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm
The Church clearly taught this before. If you are saying that the Church no longer teaches this dogma since Vatican II, then what are you saying about the Vatican II Church? Do you see the theological problem that proposes? That is why I am trying to reconcile the two but so far to no avail.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
what i see is that this document or the misenterpretation of it has caused much confusion. i have the understanding from the Church that we no longer are to say that the CC is the True Church. we are no longer to say that the CC is the means for salvation for all christians instituted by Christ. we are no longer to speak of Tradition. protestant teachings has permeated the Church and no one is stopping it. i hear ccd teachers teaching the children about left behind. i actually heard her saying to the children that they would not wanted to be left behind right in front of the priest also. i had to step in and correct this teaching. so, instead of these teachers learn the Church’s teaching they are learning protestant theology and passing on to others. i also had dissagreement with the RCIA teacher because i had the feeling that he was waterdown the Church’s teachings and i didnt like. he is the same one who is bringing a woman tomorrow to Church to teach about centering prayer. priests are doing whatever they want when they want. the inclusion of others religions has caused much damage to the Church and continues to do so. the priest are more interested in the opinions of the people than to enforce the teaching of the Church. that is what i see in the Church today. i also see more humility on a priest when he gives communion on the tongue than on those who gives on the hand.
the reason community should not be on the hand is because people come to Church wiht dirty hands and even with chewing gum stock between their fingers. so, there is a reason why at some point the Church decided that communion should be on the tongue and not on hand.
U
una_fides
Guest
Again, as I’ve pointed out, rather than starting with recent teachings of the Magisterium, begin by examining the other infallible statements of the Church that explain what it means to “be subject to the Pope.” One simply needs to define the terms to understand the meaning, but also interpret it in light of other pre-Vatican II teachings on the matter as well. Have you read compilations of pre-V2 teachings on NSOC? Here’s the one I’ve linked to on here like 5 times already: Click here.
Also keep in mind the sense in which this dogma has always been understood cannot change (Vatican I). A “nuancing” of the definition would mean that the teaching has taken on a “subtle variation” in meaning. If such a “subtle variation” or “nuancing” results in any change in the sense in which the teaching has been understood then such would contradict Vatican I’s definition that dogmas cannot change or be understood in a different sense or take on a different meaning than understood and explained previously.
U
una_fides
Guest
Papal authority extends to the authority of all those who are members of the Church, and the Church previously understood that full membership in the Church was absolutely necessary for salvation. Here is a quote from Pope Pius XI subsequent to Pope Boniface’s infallible definition that explains that membership in the Church is contingent on not only obedience but also recognition of the authority of the pope:
Pope Boniface, Mortalium Animos, Jan 6, 1928:
“11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”
U
una_fides
Guest
The problem is that the Church already has taken a very definitive stand on this issue prior to Vatican II. She universally sent out a message to the world that every human creature has the obligation and necessity to become Catholic. In the OT Ezekiel was given the duty as a watchman over the people to warn them of their impending doom:
Ezekiel 3:17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman to the house of Israel: and thou shalt hear the word out of my mouth, and shalt tell it them from me. 18 If, when I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: thou declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be converted from his wicked way, and live: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand. 19 But if thou give warning to the wicked, and he be not converted from his wickedness, and from his evil way: he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul. 20 Moreover if the just man shall turn away from his justice, and shall commit iniquity: I will lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die, because thou hast not given him warning: he shall die in his sin, and his justices which he hath done, shall not be remembered: but I will require his blood at thy hand. 21 But if thou warn the just man, that the just may not sin, and he doth not sin: living he shall live, because thou hast warned him, and thou hast delivered thy soul.
Read also Ezekiel 33:1-19
The Church has a duty to warn non-believers and those separated from her and those who are involved in false religions of their need to join the Catholic faith “and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi). I have heard varoius “Catholic” teachers, deacons, and priests say that Muslims, Jews, etc do not need to become Catholic to be saved but that as long as they live according to their own conscience they will go to heaven. Compare that with this:
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 15 August 1832:
“Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”(Ephesians 4,5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,” (Luke 11,23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.” (Symbol of Saint Athanasius)
My question. Who is the “they” in that last sentence? Is it referring to Catholics?? The context clearly states that it is referring to those who profess any kind of religion, who are those who are “not with Christ” and who “do not gather with Him.” How else could you try to interpret this statement?
U
una_fides
Guest
Feeney was condemned because he did not recognize an explicit desire for baptism. Not for believing that there is no salvation outside the Church. Those with an explicit desire for baptism are truly united to the Church through their desire (in voto). Augustine, Aquinas, and other popes have clearly taught this fact. He was not condemned for believeing that there was absolutely no salvation outside the Church, just for his rigorist understanding of baptism only by water and not by desire or blood.
P
pnewton
Guest
I am glad you brought up Augustine and Aquinas. The idea that one might be united with the Catholic Church in ways other than the formal entry through baptism is not new with Vatican II. In other words, it was not a leap, but one more step in the understanding of who is the Catholic Church.
Canon 4 of the Council of Trent reads:
Even in Trent we see some understanding of Sacramental grace outside of the visible Church, in an action which unites one with the Catholic Church.
New data: The rise of the Reformation gave theologians something new to think about. What if one was baptized on their death bed by an Anglican priest but using the proper formula? By the nature of baptism, one’s sin is removed. If no more mortal sin is commited, one is admitted into heaven (at least eventually).
I do not have all the answers and do not know history half as well as many of you. However, it is clear to me that the ideas expressed in Vatican II did not start with the conference. They did not even start with the rise of philosophical modernism.
U
una_fides
Guest
Ok, I realize I just posted a lot of stuff, but I’m hoping that the following insights can be helpful. I just sent this email to a friend who has been following some of this thread and has been sending me some helpful information.
Original email from friend:
Aquinas also wrote that “to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation” (op-stjoseph.org/Students/study/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38). This is evidently the theological source for the last sentence of Unam Sanctam. So if we combine this with Aquinas’ explanation about what constitutes schism for an individual, then we have a basis for understanding the intended meaning of Pope Boniface’s bull. That if anyone willfully refuses submission to the Pope (which the King of France was doing), then they can’t be saved.
My response:
This understanding makes some sense; however, the text itself says “every human creature” and does not limit such creatures to just those who willfully refuse submission. Since it’s necessary for salvation for “every human creature” then if there is a human creature who did not know, he would still be obligated to be “subject to the Roman pontiff” for salvation. So basically we would be reading into the text the following:
“it is absolutely necessary for salvation for every human creature [except those invincibly ignorant of such necessity] to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Perhaps the pope knew this and had this intention when he made this declaration. In other words we understand the statement to be saying that every human creature is obligated to submission to the pope, unless he is invincibly ignorant, in which case, he could potentially be joined to the Church through some other mystical way. It’s the last part that I find most difficult to understand and reconcile.
We would also have to reconcile the following:
Pope Boniface, Mortalium Animos, Jan 6, 1928:
“11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”
I suppose we would then add at the end of this statement as well “unless excused by ignorance beyond his control” (invincible ignorance), such as in the following:
Encyclical of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, March 7, 1856: 3.
There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord,[3] outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.[4] Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God.[5]
The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which teaches the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love. This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control. papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm
The only question remaining then would be how someone who is excused through ignorance beyond his control could possibly be saved. Wouldn’t he need to enter the Church through at least an intelligible desire at some point before death? Furthermore, how could such a person gain forgiveness of sins if he is outside the Church? Couldn’t it be possible and even likely that he would not be found guilty for not joining the Church due to invincible ignorance but that he would still be justly punished on account of the mortal sins he committed? It would make sense to me then why the Church would declare with such strong language throughout her history that no one was saved outside the Church, since the chances of someone invincibly ignorant and apart from the sacraments could somehow cooperate with grace enough to foster perfect contrition and perfect charity would be quite slim. It would just make more sense to say that everyone who does not heed this message will be damned. Warn them of the impending doom if they do not repent and join the Church. My question is what has happened to such a message? The Church no longer seems to teach that.
In Christ.
– "Hold firmly that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this and you dissolve the Unity of the Church” (St. Thomas Aquinas).
Original email from friend:
Aquinas also wrote that “to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation” (op-stjoseph.org/Students/study/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38). This is evidently the theological source for the last sentence of Unam Sanctam. So if we combine this with Aquinas’ explanation about what constitutes schism for an individual, then we have a basis for understanding the intended meaning of Pope Boniface’s bull. That if anyone willfully refuses submission to the Pope (which the King of France was doing), then they can’t be saved.
My response:
This understanding makes some sense; however, the text itself says “every human creature” and does not limit such creatures to just those who willfully refuse submission. Since it’s necessary for salvation for “every human creature” then if there is a human creature who did not know, he would still be obligated to be “subject to the Roman pontiff” for salvation. So basically we would be reading into the text the following:
“it is absolutely necessary for salvation for every human creature [except those invincibly ignorant of such necessity] to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Perhaps the pope knew this and had this intention when he made this declaration. In other words we understand the statement to be saying that every human creature is obligated to submission to the pope, unless he is invincibly ignorant, in which case, he could potentially be joined to the Church through some other mystical way. It’s the last part that I find most difficult to understand and reconcile.
We would also have to reconcile the following:
Pope Boniface, Mortalium Animos, Jan 6, 1928:
“11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”
I suppose we would then add at the end of this statement as well “unless excused by ignorance beyond his control” (invincible ignorance), such as in the following:
Encyclical of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, March 7, 1856: 3.
There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord,[3] outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.[4] Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God.[5]
The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which teaches the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love. This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control. papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm
The only question remaining then would be how someone who is excused through ignorance beyond his control could possibly be saved. Wouldn’t he need to enter the Church through at least an intelligible desire at some point before death? Furthermore, how could such a person gain forgiveness of sins if he is outside the Church? Couldn’t it be possible and even likely that he would not be found guilty for not joining the Church due to invincible ignorance but that he would still be justly punished on account of the mortal sins he committed? It would make sense to me then why the Church would declare with such strong language throughout her history that no one was saved outside the Church, since the chances of someone invincibly ignorant and apart from the sacraments could somehow cooperate with grace enough to foster perfect contrition and perfect charity would be quite slim. It would just make more sense to say that everyone who does not heed this message will be damned. Warn them of the impending doom if they do not repent and join the Church. My question is what has happened to such a message? The Church no longer seems to teach that.
In Christ.
– "Hold firmly that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this and you dissolve the Unity of the Church” (St. Thomas Aquinas).
S
Spirithound
Guest
It may make more sense to you to leave it at the “hard” message, but apparently that’s not completely true. The God who is Truth revealed to us some exceptions. Take it up with Him.
I agree with the rest of your post though. A question i see now is whether a non-Christian commits as many mortal sins as a Catholic does. One criterion for a sin to be mortal is that the sinner has full knowledge that it is a sin.
Luke 12:47-48 (NAB)
47 “And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
R
ron77nyc
Guest
Is this the gospel message that the apostles proclaimed? Maybe the gospel was twisted and tweaked long before Vatican II.
U
una_fides
Guest
I have no idea where you are trying to go with this statement. Could you explain? To say the Catholic Church “twisted” the gospel message sounds incredibly protestant to me…
The apostles were commissioned to convert every creature: Matthew 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Those who do not accept the gospel message would be judged. (Theologically we understand such as a refusal to cooperate with grace that is leading them to the fullness of truth and salvation in Christ’s Church. Once someone hears the message. God’s grace moves upon them to listen and respond. Unfortunately for most, I believe pride and relationships get in the way.)
Here are some verses:
Luke 10:10 But into whatsoever city you enter, and they receive you not, going forth into the streets thereof, say: 11 Even the very dust of your city that cleaveth to us, we wipe off against you. Yet know this, that the kingdom of God is at hand. 12 I say to you, it shall be more tolerable at that day for Sodom than for that city. 13 Woe to thee, Corozain! Woe to thee, Bethsaida! For if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the mighty works that have been wrought in you, they would have done penance long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 15 And thou, Capharnaum, which art exalted unto heaven, thou shalt be thrust down to hell. 16 He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. 15 Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. 16 Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves.
Mark 6:11-12 11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you; going forth from thence, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony to them. 12 And going forth they preached men should do penance:
- Status