Why it doesn't matter what I believe

[reggieM]

But thats not actually the point. The point is that previous official documents have stated these softer points today much harsher previously. (Comprehensive or not, that was never even part of the point)

Yes, language can be harsher and more blunt, or there can be fuller explanations given which will make the doctrine appear “softer” but it’s only because more subtle distinctions are given.

 

[ZenFred]

Yes, language can be harsher and more blunt, or there can be fuller explanations given which will make the doctrine appear “softer” but it’s only because more subtle distinctions are given.

I’ve been mostly staying out of this inner-catholic debate. But this is very true. You can have a very uncompromising doctrinal stance but it can be presented in more or less pastoral way to those struggling with doctrines. Likewise for those of us with doubts can present them in different ways, some compassionate and some not. I’m about as heretical as they come but I never mention a word or it outside the private conversations with my clergy while in church. Heresy breeds discord. At worst no one would listen to my views and I would be excluded. Best case is others would listen and I would split up the church. Our church (the episcopal) is still healing over splits on homosexual clergy. Obviously you all would say that our church is in error. But either way, there is real suffering caused by the issue that has caused doiceses to splint and money to be spent in legal battles rather than on the poor or missions of the church. Perhaps some discord is necessary but I would not want to cause it unnecessarily.

 

[PRmerger]

I do appreciate the broad perspective here, and especially this perhaps: “If Jesus Christ is God and we are saved by Christ, then we are still saved by God.” This is sooo important. We are saved by God. In fact if Jesus saves us, He *must *be God. When we’ve seen Jesus we’ve seen the Father. He reveals God’s nature and will. It was *God *hanging on the cross.

If Catholics don’t mention the name “Jesus” quite as often as some denominations do, it’s only because of this recognition-there is no* distinction* between Jesus and God. And the primary revelation is just that: God is love-and loves the world so deeply that He would even willingly experience humiliation, torture, and physical death in order to prove it- in order to prove that love and goodness are foundational to this universe.

If this were Facebook, I’d click “LIKE!”

 

[PRmerger]

That’s the same conclusion I’ve come to - and it’s taken me years! It’s wonderful how freeing that is. I no longer worry if my beliefs - or anyone else’s - are orthodox. What is - is.

I think this is an incorrect view of reality.

You should be concerned with truth.

That matters immensely.

 

[Rosebud77]

define truth… and Bonnie is right; see previous post… and shows reason and humility. The latter often in short supply in discussions

 

[MichaelP3]

+1

Hi James

I noticed this +1 you posted.

Taking into account that our misunderstanding regarding the CCC has been resolved I expected an answer to my previous questions to you? To note that didn’t actually have anything to do with regards to my questions.

Personally I feel you placed yourself in quite a jammy but if you can actually answer them I would be very interested what you have to say.

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

Yes, language can be harsher and more blunt, or there can be fuller explanations given which will make the doctrine appear “softer” but it’s only because more subtle distinctions are given.

Personally I don’t think that is the reason (people are just as confused today then 100 yeare ago of what something in there means). Today it is just more frowned upon to bash someone for their beliefs then a few 100 years ago. I would rather call that the development. (Whether bad or good depending on who you are, still a development)

 

[PRmerger]

define truth… and Bonnie is right; see previous post… and shows reason and humility. The latter often in short supply in discussions

Truth is that which is in conformity with reality.

And you are correct here: there can often a glaring lack of humility in discussions.

 

[Rosebud77]

Truth is that which is in conformity with reality.

And you are correct here: there can often a glaring lack of humility in discussions.

Perceptions of both truth and reality differ as we see so often here. So we can never assert reality or truth in the manner in which you suggest. Humility comes in when we admit that and accept it in our dealings with others.

In that sense it does not matter .

 

[PRmerger]

Perceptions of both truth and reality differ as we see so often here. So we can never assert reality or truth in the manner in which you suggest.

LOL!

Are you asserting this to be a truth or not?

 

[Rosebud77]

LOL!

Are you asserting this to be a truth or not?

Why the laughter? And I do not play word games, my friend. As i am sure you are aware. Bless you!

 

[reggieM]

Why the laughter? And I do not play word games, my friend. As i am sure you are aware. Bless you!

He is laughing, as I am - because you asserted a truth while denying that we could assert truths.

 

[fhansen]

If this were Facebook, I’d click “LIKE!”

Thank you. I’ve often wished that CAF had that feature. Another forum, Christian Forums, has it and people use it frequently.

 

[PRmerger]

He is laughing, as I am - because you asserted a truth while denying that we could assert truths.

Yep. Egg-zactly.

Oh, and I’m a “she”, not a “he”.

 

[James248]

Hi James

I noticed this +1 you posted.

Taking into account that our misunderstanding regarding the CCC has been resolved I expected an answer to my previous questions to you? To note that didn’t actually have anything to do with regards to my questions.

Personally I feel you placed yourself in quite a jammy but if you can actually answer them I would be very interested what you have to say.

Regards

You’ve already read my answer. It’s in the teaching of the Church throughout the centuries.

 

[mlz]

I’ve been mostly staying out of this inner-catholic debate. But this is very true. You can have a very uncompromising doctrinal stance but it can be presented in more or less pastoral way to those struggling with doctrines. Likewise for those of us with doubts can present them in different ways, some compassionate and some not. I’m about as heretical as they come but I never mention a word or it outside the private conversations with my clergy while in church. Heresy breeds discord. At worst no one would listen to my views and I would be excluded. Best case is others would listen and I would split up the church. Our church (the episcopal) is still healing over splits on homosexual clergy. Obviously you all would say that our church is in error. But either way, there is real suffering caused by the issue that has caused doiceses to splint and money to be spent in legal battles rather than on the poor or missions of the church. Perhaps some discord is necessary but I would not want to cause it unnecessarily.

“You had a very uncompromising doctrinal stance”?.. I think the Jewish leaders might have said the same of Him. Truth is uncompromising. Jesus IS who HE said he was and you must hold FAST to what HE says or reject Him. The choice is ours to make. Sorry, you sound very relativistic ( a very common view of our times …sadly ) You make choices that will determine ETERNALLY where you choose to be. With the Triune God ( Father,Son and Holy Spirit) who created or your own " god"… not Jesus who will be Eternally separate from the Triune God… for Eternity. My prayers for you as you journey.
In His Love,
mlz

 

[MichaelP3]

You’ve already read my answer. It’s in the teaching of the Church throughout the centuries.

Actually James, you never answered the questions.

You said.

There is no salvation outside the Church. There is the POSSIBLE salvation of those who genuinely don’t know of Christ’s Church, but that number is very few in my opinion.

Is that what I said? But don’t take my word. Take the CCC’s.

Then you quote the CCC which take note, I am very well versed in. Has been my bedtime reading material form some years now

So it’s clear from the CCC that those who reject the Church can’t be saved.

Yet again, that is not what it says. You may would like to argue this but take not that you change this to “may” later on as is stated in the CCC and I pointed towards which you had another problem with and that seems to have put you in this jammy I would refer to.

“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.”

So the CCC is pretty clear: the Church is the Body of Christ, and if you reject the Church you reject the Founder.

And “may” doesn’t equal “will.”

Knowing, Believing and understanding. The 3 words that gets mixed up so badly here!

This is where you made your biggest jammy James. You assert very well what it is saying, but you failed to answer if being Catholic actually changes this simple statement. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant, we are talking about you using the authoritative sources that you wish to use, are we not? Yes I would expect you to answer that it doesn’t change to “will” even for a Catholic according to the CCC, so why make that argument? Except if you have a but… Which would be the case (So in essence, according to the CCC, you are right, but YOUR argument doesn’t help your case as well, meaning we are in the same boat )

It seems some on this thread have a murky definition of the phrase “to embrace Christ.” To embrace Christ is to believe in Him and follow His commands. Like, “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” or “Love your enemies” or “Take up your cross and follow Me.” The Catholic Church has the fullness of this truth. Outside of her there is no salvation. People with invincible ignorance can be saved, but there’s a huge difference from “can be” and “will be.”

This one just states your contradictory posts.

Lastly, Would you call a person who embraces Christ but is not a Catholic a Christian?

Regards

 

[Vonsalza]

Actually James, you never answered the questions.
You said.
Then you quote the CCC which take note, I am very well versed in. Has been my bedtime reading material form some years now
Yet again, that is not what it says. You may would like to argue this but take not that you change this to “may” later on as is stated in the CCC and I pointed towards which you had another problem with and that seems to have put you in this jammy I would refer to.

From the CCC:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

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.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

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.337

848 "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, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

Lastly, Would you call a person who embraces Christ but is not a Catholic a Christian?
Regards

“Embrace” may be too vague a term. As an example, Mormons arguably “embrace” Christ, but many (if not most) here do not consider them Christian due to their views on the Holy Spirit and their baptismal validity.

 

[MichaelP3]

From the CCC:

“Embrace” may be too vague a term. As an example, Mormons arguably “embrace” Christ, but many (if not most) here do not consider them Christian due to their views on the Holy Spirit and their baptismal validity.

Okay… fair point, although that is not the point. (You could have used Islam in this argument although you and I know perfectly well that is not what was meant)

This I see on these forums as a problem with referring to more then one question, The poster would just focus on one and fail to recognise the other. Really, there is no divine indictment to not correct your fellow Catholic. I posed 2 unanswered things there. You chose to focus on the one in a way but we both perfectly know what was meant.

Regards

 

[friardchips]

Someone who embraces Christ, with or without the mediation of the Church, is a Christian by definition.

If one is a Christian, by definition, then one is part of the Church, by definition, and if one is a Christian and part of the Church, by definition, then one is in receipt of grace through the mediation of the Church, even if, such a person is not consciously aware of such a definition.