Why should someone choose Orthodoxy over Catholicisma?

[Vico]

Thanks for that, but Unam Sanctam says that all people must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. You can’t be subject to the Roman Pontiff if you are outside the Catholic Church, whether through ignorance or deliberate rejection.

He explained that “The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ”. So being subject applies to those who “are not ignorant of the fact” as described. The canon law describes the necessity of being subject when a Catholic:CIC Canon 750 and CCEO Canon 598
§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[Celticnovice]

Thanks for that, but Unam Sanctam says that all people must be **subject to the Roman Pontiff **to be saved. You can’t be subject to the Roman Pontiff if you are outside the Catholic Church, whether through ignorance or deliberate rejection.

But do you think that is what Vico’s post is saying?..I don’t, I read something different

Whoops, I posted this too late. I see Vico has explained his post and I agree with him

 

[mardukm]

It should also be noted that “ignorance of the fact” here is not merely about ignorance of the particular statement that is the teaching, but refers rather to ignorance of everything the teaching involves that forms the rational basis for its acceptance. Most people are aware of the teaching, but have not heard the reasons behind it. Rejection of the Catholic Faith means the rejection of the Catholic Faith by an informed conscience.

Blessings,
Marduk

He explained that “The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ”. So being subject applies to those who “are not ignorant of the fact” as described. The canon law describes the necessity of being subject when a Catholic:CIC Canon 750 and CCEO Canon 598
§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[Koineman]

He explained that “The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ”. So being subject applies to those who “are not ignorant of the fact” as described. The canon law describes the necessity of being subject when a Catholic:CIC Canon 750 and CCEO Canon 598
§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

And this doesn’t eliminate the contradiction. If anything, it confirms it. The boldfaced parts above refer to what I mean. Belief in everything the church teaches cannot be done if one is outside the church, whether through ignorance or deliberately. Yes, it does go on to talk about those who reject the things to be held, but that doesn’t eliminate the meaning that everything the church teaches must be held.

The quote first posted explains, “The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation.” Do the original texts that say no salvation outside the church make this particular distinction between ignorant and not ignorant? I know Unam Sanctam does not. But do any others? If not, then the pope was making this distinction centuries after they were written.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And this doesn’t eliminate the contradiction. If anything, it confirms it. The boldfaced parts above refer to what I mean. Belief in everything the church teaches cannot be done if one is outside the church, whether through ignorance or deliberately. Yes, it does go on to talk about those who reject the things to be held, but that doesn’t eliminate the meaning that everything the church teaches must be held.

The quote first posted explains, “The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation.” Do the original texts that say no salvation outside the church make this particular distinction between ignorant and not ignorant? I know Unam Sanctam does not. But do any others? If not, then the pope was making this distinction centuries after they were written.

V-II-CCC

ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

As to your last paragraph, I’m not sure I follow your thinking here…“Do the original texts that say no salvation outside the church make this particular distinction between ignorant and not ignorant? I know Unam Sanctam does not. But do any others? If not, then the pope was making this distinction centuries after they were written.”

 

[Koineman]

As to your last paragraph, I’m not sure I follow your thinking here…“Do the original texts that say no salvation outside the church make this particular distinction between ignorant and not ignorant? I know Unam Sanctam does not. But do any others? If not, then the pope was making this distinction centuries after they were written.”

I don’t see what is difficult to follow. The explanation by the pope, quoted earlier, makes a distinction between ignorance and non-ignorance. I don’t see that distinction in Unam Sanctum.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t see what is difficult to follow. The explanation by the pope, quoted earlier, makes a distinction between ignorance and non-ignorance. I don’t see that distinction in Unam Sanctum.

I didn’t read “earlier” you’ll have to excuse me.

The Catholic Church follows Lumen Gentium which is the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church since Pope Paul VI and V-II. As God is in the constant “I AM” so too then is His Church which bears the teaching authority thus they can and do define Doctrine as revealed by the Holy Spirit.

Unam Sancum wasn’t the first word on this topic, nor was it the last…

google.com/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus&sa=U&ei=6Tt0UMWvCdLW0gH9j4D4Bg&ved=0CBQQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNG2ddPtpjPkvCZeq4lp1P-nHXSvrQ

 

[Koineman]

I didn’t read “earlier” you’ll have to excuse me.

The Catholic Church follows Lumen Gentium which is the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church since Pope Paul VI and V-II. As God is in the constant “I AM” so too then is His Church which bears the teaching authority thus they can and do define Doctrine as revealed by the Holy Spirit.

Unam Sancum wasn’t the first word on this topic, nor was it the last…

google.com/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus&sa=U&ei=6Tt0UMWvCdLW0gH9j4D4Bg&ved=0CBQQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNG2ddPtpjPkvCZeq4lp1P-nHXSvrQ

Out of all those quoted expressions of EENS on that page, which one(s) says that those who don’t know the gospel OR are outside the church can be saved? If any of them did say that, that would show an agreement between those earlier teachings of the church and what Vatican II said. Of course, if only some of them said it, and not all of them, it would still leave an inconsistency.

 

[Adamski]

Practical reasons why I’m catholic over orthodox

1. catholic church in every town
2. ethnically diverse
3. orthodox stand the entire time during mass
4. thier is more lapsed Catholics and I have enjoyed bring them to mass
5. nearest orthodox church is 40 miles away

Theological reasons

1. purgatory is in the bible
2. Matthew 16 is really clear cut catholic after close examination
3. mortal sin is in the bible
4. historically the orthodox church has fallen into heracy and the rcc has brought them back

 

[GaryTaylor]

Out of all those quoted expressions of EENS on that page, which one(s) says that those who don’t know the gospel OR are outside the church can be saved? If any of them did say that, that would show an agreement between those earlier teachings of the church and what Vatican II said. Of course, if only some of them said it, and not all of them, it would still leave an inconsistency.

Well in charity I suppose many would argue a different point on this and perhaps I am wrong here, but I see it like this.

The inconsistency is mankind subject to his particular period of time. For example Biblically the Silver Rule turned into the Golden Rule. Do no harm, became, do unto others as you would have done unto you which correlates with Love thy Neighbor. Or Biblically also with Jesus here…

Matthew 19
7 They said to Him, “Why then did MOSES command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

The developement comes into play as suggested above at Trent.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Practical reasons why I’m catholic over orthodox

1. catholic church in every town
2. ethnically diverse
3. orthodox stand the entire time during mass
4. thier is more lapsed Catholics and I have enjoyed bring them to mass
5. nearest orthodox church is 40 miles away

Theological reasons

1. purgatory is in the bible
2. Matthew 16 is really clear cut catholic after close examination
3. mortal sin is in the bible
4. historically the orthodox church has fallen into heracy and the rcc has brought them back

Well you’ll receive much attention with your post, I can assure you.

 

[RyanBlack]

historically the orthodox church has fallen into heracy and the rcc has brought them back

Would you elaborate on this one please?

 

[Koineman]

Well in charity I suppose many would argue a different point on this and perhaps I am wrong here, but I see it like this.

The inconsistency is mankind subject to his particular period of time. For example Biblically the Silver Rule turned into the Golden Rule. Do no harm, became, do unto others as you would have done unto you which correlates with Love thy Neighbor. Or Biblically also with Jesus here…

That, of course, is the standard Catholic response to this dilemma: attributing it to development of doctrine, or clarification over time. But the later teaching of Vatican II is not an expanding of earlier teachings; it’s a contradiction of them.

Vatican II: Those outside the church can be saved.
Pre-Vatican II: Those outside the church cannot be saved.

If it can be shown that earlier teachings clearly say that those who don’t know the gospel can achieve eternal salvation, as V2 says, then continuity would be shown. That’s why I asked if any of the documents on the page you referred me to actually came out and made such clear statements. But you didn’t respond to that.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Vatican II: Those outside the church can be saved.
Pre-Vatican II: Those outside the church cannot be saved…

Misrepresenting V-II I would say.

If it can be shown that earlier teachings clearly say that those who don’t know the gospel can achieve eternal salvation, as V2 says, then continuity would be shown.

Trent was my response to the brief article so I guess that shows continuity which you can further read below.

google.com/url?q=http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/outside_the_church.htm&sa=U&ei=slV0UIqHHuTl0QHr9oDAAg&ved=0CBcQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNEgD2furpmUFcxR0vHba9N-DXC_NA

May also want to read Fr Most, brilliant to say the least.

google.com/url?q=http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/outside_the_church.htm&sa=U&ei=wVR0UKGAHbS60AH9jYCgDg&ved=0CCoQFjAF&usg=AFQjCNFZj80L6w0zEf0OX6d0EPIzQRO9tw

 

[GaryTaylor]

Would you elaborate on this one please?

My apology in advance.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why choose Orthodoxy? Celebrity endorsement…

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/208165_388610081208960_952468819_n.jpg

“I realize how it is important and great to have the opportunity to go to church to reflect on those important issues that make you Orthodox, and the answer, that Orthodoxy offers.”
T. Hanks

 

[Koineman]

Misrepresenting V-II I would say.

Nope, no misrepresentation. Pre-V2 said you must be in the visible church, as the Council of Florence made clear:

It 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.

Going by the boldfaced portions above, it’s clear they had in view that one must be in the visible church, since they say that only those in the church can benefit from the saving effects of the sacraments. You can’t receive the sacraments if you’re outside the church.

Unam Sanctam stated clearly that one must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. There’s no way anyone can be subject to the pope unless one is in the visible Catholic Church. You can’t be subject to the pope if you don’t know who he is because you’re ignorant of the church, much less if you’ve never even heard of the church.

But then V2 comes along and says you don’t have to be in the visible church to be saved.

And of course we can’t forget the tradition in the New Testament, that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.

The Catholic Church has contradicted both its own teachings and those of the New Testament. I’m not misrepresenting a thing.

Trent was my response to the brief article so I guess that shows continuity which you can further read below.

google.com/url?q=http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/outside_the_church.htm&sa=U&ei=slV0UIqHHuTl0QHr9oDAAg&ved=0CBcQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNEgD2furpmUFcxR0vHba9N-DXC_NA

That doesn’t mention Trent, so I think you posted the wrong URL.

 

[mardukm]

Nope, no misrepresentation. Pre-V2 said you must be in the visible church, as the Council of Florence made clear:

Going by the boldfaced portions above, it’s clear they had in view that one must be in the visible church, since they say that only those in the church can benefit from the saving effects of the sacraments. You can’t receive the sacraments if you’re outside the church.

Unam Sanctam stated clearly that one must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. There’s no way anyone can be subject to the pope unless one is in the visible Catholic Church. You can’t be subject to the pope if you don’t know who he is because you’re ignorant of the church, much less if you’ve never even heard of the church.

You are aware of course that these documents were promulgated during the Scholastic Age? The scholastics adhered to the principle of invincible ignorance, so it must be taken in that context.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Koineman]

You are aware of course that these documents were promulgated during the Scholastic Age? The scholastics adhered to the principle of invincible ignorance, so it must be taken in that context.

Blessings,
Marduk

Interesting. So what you’re telling me is that even though they meant their statements to be inclusive of those who don’t know the gospel due to invincible ignorance, they didn’t make that clear? Even in documents that are supposed to be infallible?

 

[mardukm]

Interesting. So what you’re telling me is that even though they meant their statements to be inclusive of those who don’t know the gospel due to invincible ignorance, they didn’t make that clear? Even in documents that are supposed to be infallible?

I think you meant “meant their statement to be exclusive…”? Well, assuming Unam Sanctam was proclaiming a dogma, we know that dogmas are only meant to address matters that are at issue. If invincible ignorance was a generally accepted principle, why would there be a need to include it in the dogma?

Blessings,
Marduk