You can't have it both ways.

[guanophore]

What they are saying is: When the Church teaches “No Salvation Outside the Church” it really means there is salvation outside the Church.

No, Ron. there is ONLY ONE CHURCH, and there is no salvation under heaven except through Christ, who brings the saved into Himself, and into HIS ONE BODY, the Church. All who are saved, therefore, are members of HIS ONE CHURCH, whether they recognize this fact, or not.

 

[StTommyMore]

You have said nothing a mere Christian following sola scriptura can’t believe in.

Have you ever considered the Holy Traditions set up by GOD that have been revealed in Scripture that Jesus followed?

Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium are inextricably interwoven. The Magisterium serves Scripture and Tradition, the two channels by which God reveals himself.

 

[guanophore]

It is called the development of doctrine. Doctrine evolves and changes as it is reveald to us through the Church

I think it is more accurate to say that it is our understanding of the doctrine that develops and evolves. The Popes who wrote these statements had no personal experience of the plethora of “christian” communities that would be spawned by the divisions created in the Reformation.

There was no way to foresee that so many people would get only an abbreviated version of the Gospel, and yet beleive it with all their heart. They stand in the tradition of Apollos, fervent, but uninformed, or incorrectly informed.

The doctrine, being part of the once for all deposit of faith, is immutable (unchanging), and we are not at liberty to change it, or abandon any part of it.

 

[ron77nyc]

Not changed. Developed.

Still the same teaching. Our understanding has developed.

The word heretic was at an earlier time used to describe those who worshipped Jesus outside the Church. Now they are separated brethren. Would you call that a development or a change? I call it a change of heart.

 

[guanophore]

Here is what the Baltimore Catechism taught:
baltimore-catechism.com/lesson12.htm
Q. 571. How do you show that Protestant Churches have not the marks of the true Church?
A. Protestant Churches have not the marks of the true Church, because:

1. They are not one either in government or faith; for they have no chief head, and they profess different beliefs;
2. They are not holy, because their doctrines are founded on error and lead to evil consequences;
3. They are not catholic or universal in time, place or doctrine. They have not existed in all ages nor in all places, and their doctrines do not suit all classes;
4. They are not apostolic, for they were not established for hundreds of years after the Apostles, and they do not teach the doctrines of the Apostles.

This teaching has not changed, either. The fact that they are members of the One Church founded by Christ happens in spite of the fact that their ecclesial communites are separated from the One Faith.

 

[guanophore]

I can’t get these 2 to fit together:

Baltimore Catechism

1. They are not one either in government or faith; for they have no chief head, and they profess different beliefs;
2. They are not holy, because their doctrines are founded on error and lead to evil consequences;
3. They are not catholic or universal in time, place or doctrine. They have not existed in all ages nor in all places, and their doctrines do not suit all classes;
4. They are not apostolic, for they were not established for hundreds of years after the Apostles, and they do not teach the doctrines of the Apostles.

**NEW VATICAN II CATECHISM **
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

I will pray for you, Ron. It has been abundantly clear for a long time that you suffer from a deficient perception of “Church”.

 

[schaick]

I did not mean to imply that my separated brethren do not accept many parts of Catholic Sacred Tradition. The compliant was, though, that “there is no evidence” that Sacred Tradtiion exists, when in fact, you have cited it here.

The Bible is “proof” of Catholic Sacred Tradition, possibly some of the most widely visible evidence. However, some refuse to accept even this. Perhaps because they are so busy beating us over the head with it?

No, you are stating your percpetions of what is written, and how you personally understand the “requirements”. Other equally sincere and dedicated Christians have different “requirements” when they interpret it, and the Church founded by Christ teaches differently. Who will resolve all these differences?

Lol!! No I think your complaint is that I am not compliant!!!

The only example I have seen from the Bible is Matthew 16 and Peter being a Pope, that is hardly evidence when taken into context with things he wrote, what Paul wrote and events that occurred.

I am sure it seems that way to you, since you are part of a spiritual tradition that has been separated from the Apostolic faith for 500 years. Due to the fact that you have received a truncated version of the Gospel, you believe these things “were never mentioned”. They have been excised from the abbreviated version of the Gospel that has come down to you.
{/QUOTE]

What am I missing?

On another thread I came to the conclusiion that:

*The Sacred Traditions that a non-Catholic Christian doesn’t have access to according to the Catholic Church all revolve around the authority of the Catholic Church.

I think I understand now - why Sacred Tradition for the Catholic is on equal terms with Scripture. The authority can’t really be concretely proved- it must simply be accepted.*

Ok. I can certainly stipulate that Refomred Christians have developed their own doctrines.

I think you are not understanding the difference between inventing doctrines, and development of a doctrine. You see, the CC believes that the public revelation of God ceased with the death of the last Apostle. We are not at liberty to add or subtract anything from the once for all divine deposit of faith that was committed to the Church. What “develops” is our understanding of what was meant, not the Truths themselves, which were whole and entire at the beginning.

The Church came to clarity over the role of the successor of Peter, and of the Theotokos, just as she came to clarity over the canon of scripture . But the books of the Bible were inspired when they were written, just as the doctrines of the faith were complete when they were deposited to the Church.

For gaps of hundreds of years to pass before something is made clear? That is saying nothing, except they are slow learners.

Understanding that sola scripture is not a doctrine but a practise what doctrines have mere trinitarian Christians made up?

 

[StTommyMore]

The word heretic was at an earlier time used to describe those who worshipped Jesus outside the Church. Now they are separated brethren. Would you call that a development or a change? I call it a change of heart.

it is a recognition that on order to be a heretic, one must have consciously and obstinately rejected the Church (as Luther did). I would say that the vast majority of modern Protestants do not meet this criterion. In order to reject the Church, one must first actually know what she teaches.

 

[ron77nyc]

No, Ron. there is ONLY ONE CHURCH, and there is no salvation under heaven except through Christ, who brings the saved into Himself, and into HIS ONE BODY, the Church. All who are saved, therefore, are members of HIS ONE CHURCH, whether they recognize this fact, or not.

I agree but that’s not what is being taught here:

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“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 Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; ” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

 

[guanophore]

2. They are not holy

1. They are not catholic or universal in time, place or doctrine.
2. They are not apostolic

These statements in the Baltimore Catechism refer to the ecclesial communities,not to the members in them. The Church does not make a determination of which souls are saved (holy) and which are not.

Protestants have always professed the faith of the apostles. They only reject the authority of the pope.

This is not true, Ron. There are many elements of the Apostolic faith that are rejected by Protestants, in addition to the role of the successor of Peter.

How could they be in union if they are not holy, catholic or apostolic and not in submission to the pope? Those were the requirements for unity from the beginning.

That is why we call you “separated brethren”. It is an improper joining. There is unity in some areas, and it is lacking in others.

Besides, the arguement you are trying to apply here is a description about separated ecclesial communities. This should not be applied to the souls of the individuals in them. Only God cand read their hearts.

 

[StTommyMore]

I agree but that’s not what is being taught here:

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“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 Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; ” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Papal Bulls are not infallible. If they are, then all of the United states is legitimately Spanish territory

 

[guanophore]

Not really a stumbling block. What you are saying is the Baltimore Catechism was approved by a council of bishops but it did not teach the true teachings of the Catholic Church.

It transmitted the infallible teachings of the church to the best of their ability in the region where it was used at the time.

I’m willing to say that the Church has changed its teaching under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That is part of why you are not Catholic.

The Church does not have the authority to change the Teachings of the Apostles that were once for all delivered to her.

  Whatever infallible statements were made before Vatican II now need to be changed so there goes a man made rule which says that once an infallible statement has been made it cannot be changed.

No, Ron, you are in error. What changes is our understanding of the immutable and infallible Truth. We face conditions in society today that were not present when some of these documents were written. IT is the duty of the magesterium to show us how the infallible and unchanging doctrines of the faith apply to us in our times. Think about it. Fundamentalism did not even exist at the time!

It reminds me of when the Holy Spirit told Peter to preach to the gentiles.

I would as what you mean by this, but it is probably off the subject, and since it is based upon a false premise, is likely a false conclusion.

 

[ron77nyc]

I will pray for you, Ron. It has been abundantly clear for a long time that you suffer from a deficient perception of “Church”.

A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.

  "The Emperor is naked," he said. 

  "Fool!" his father reprimanded, running after him. "Don't talk nonsense!" He grabbed his child and took him away. But the boy's remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried: 

  "The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It's true!" 

  The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He though it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle.

 

[guanophore]

Does our salvation depend on whether we follow those things you mention?

Schaick, I know you don’t believe this, but I am going to make the statement anyway. It is not within the purview or authority of humanity to determine that upon which “our salvation depends”. We are His creatures, and this perogative is His alone. He determines how He will save us. When we nurture the hubris to take this upon ourselves, we commit the same sin that Adam and Eve did in the Garden. They thought they could be the ones to determine good and evil. It is a lie from the pit, and those who fall into it fall to the Serpent.

 

[PRmerger]

A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.

Yes, indeed, ron. We ought to see things as it has been “showed to” us.

You have been shown.

You are like the dwarves in CS Lewis’ The Last Battle, who continue to insist they’re being shown manure, when in reality they are being shown flowers.

 

[ron77nyc]

Papal Bulls are not infallible. If they are, then all of the United states is legitimately Spanish territory

There has been no infallible declaration on what is infallible and what is not. It’s open to private interpretation.

 

[guanophore]

Have you ever considered the Holy Traditions set up by GOD that have been revealed in Scripture that Jesus followed?

Yes, of course! Since it is a product of Sacred Tradition, the entire contents of the NT is Sacred Tradition. What we do NOT do is limit the Word of God to the Scriptures. He is too big for that.

It would also nullify His Word that He deposited in the Church. It is the same as saying that He is too disinterested or too weak to preserve His Word where He planted it.

Jesus did not “follow” the Scriptures. He demonstrated how they were to be used, but being the Author and Finisher, He is not subject to His own creation (the Scriptures). His authority existed outside of them, just as it continues to do today.

 

[StTommyMore]

Schaick, I know you don’t believe this, but I am going to make the statement anyway. It is not within the purview or authority of humanity to determine that upon which “our salvation depends”. We are His creatures, and this perogative is His alone. He determines how He will save us. When we nurture the hubris to take this upon ourselves, we commit the same sin that Adam and Eve did in the Garden. They thought they could be the ones to determine good and evil. It is a lie from the pit, and those who fall into it fall to the Serpent.

I agree 10000%!!! Salvation requiress the mediation of the Church. And it always has, going all the way back to Acts.

 

[StTommyMore]

There has been no infallible declaration on what is infallible and what is not. It’s open to private interpretation.

Do you realize the implications of this statement? You are saying that if you think something is infallible, it is for you, but If I don’t, then it isn’t for me, which undermined the entire doctrine of infallibility.

 

[PRmerger]

There has been no infallible declaration on what is infallible and what is not. It’s open to private interpretation.

Are you under the misapprehension that Catholics must give their assent only to “infallible declarations”?