You can't have it both ways.

[1holycatholic]

Then they would be outside the Church seeking God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, trying in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience so they too could be saved according to the catechism.

AFAIK that would be the case for material heresy, but not for formal heresy.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone/Bible Alone)

If you are one of those people who truly believe in the sixteen century Protestant invention, “Sola scriptura”, or scripture alone or Bible alone, then all that anyone with this belief should ever post here, to defend their position are Bible verses, right?

Anything else is extra-biblical and not “Sola scriptura” and would be essentially meaningless, correct?

If all Bible verses are so clear and “*not only the learned, but the unlearned… may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” *why are there so many non-Catholic Christian, Protestant denominations who disagree with each other?

If this were true, then there would only be only one Protestant denomination, correct? If I were to go along with this belief, then these disagreements wouldn’t make any sense, would they?

Maybe someone here could an explain how Sola scriptura works and if it does work then why so much division in Protestantism? .

Your thoughts?

 

[guanophore]

Let’s leave Protestants out of the equation for now. There were generations of Eastern Orthodox Christians. (Are they the schismatics he is referring to?) He excludes them from salvation. He also excludes Jews, Muslims, followers of Buddha and Confucius and pagans.

In 1442 A.D, Pope Eugenius IV, 1442, at the Council of Florence, reaffirmed this truth. "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…

The catechism says Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, followers of Buddha and Confucius and pagans can be saved if they “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.”

One says you have to be living within the Church to be saved. One says you don’t. There was no mention of an invisible church.

Well, I don’t know what to tell you, Ron. We read it differently.

The Pope does not claim to look into the hearts of individuals. There is only one name under heaven by which we may be saved, Jesus Christ. He only has One Body, therefore, all He saves are members of that One Body, the Church. We recognize that there are members of His body that are not visible to us in this life, and that only God can judge the heart and soul of a person at the time they go to meet their maker. We see that people are added to His flock are those who seek God with a sincere heart, and are moved by grace, and try to do His will within the dictates of their conscience.

You seem to have some reason to cling to these Teachings as being contradictory, which is your perogative.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not saying I agree with Fr. Feeney but the Church for many centuries did teach Feeneyism. What else do you call this?

“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.)

I call it a declaration of the faith that was passed down to us from the Apostles. Jesus only has ONE CHURCH. There is no one saved except through Him. All who are saved are members of His One Body, the church. Therefore, no one is saved who remains outside the Church.

What Innocent and Boniface maybe did not know or appreciate, is that these persons may not be directly visible. Their only experience of Christians was those inside the visible Church, so they may not have imagined otherwise. I am sure they would never have imagined the plethora of denominations that exist today.

Jesus is the Chief Shepherd. He placed Peter in charge of feeding and caring for His Flock. Peter passed this responsibility on to his successor, and that one to his, and so on up to the present day. There is One Shepherd, and One Flock, therefore, all who beling to the One Shepherd belong to the One Flock. their care and feeding is the responsibility of the successor of Peter. the fact that they are wayward, disobedient, and rebellious toward the one who has been given responsibility for their care and feeding changes nothing.

 

[guanophore]

From Barnes NT Notes:

Some have supposed that Matthew refers to some prophecy which was not recorded, but handed down by tradition. But these suppositions are not satisfactory.

These “suppositions are not satisfactory” to SS adherants because they deny the Word of God that exists outside of the Scriptures in Sacred Tradition. However, it is plenty satisfactory to Jesus and His Apostles, because they accepted Sacred Tradition. Had they not, they would have had to reject the entire Pentateuch, since the contents of the book of Genesis from Creation to Moses was all preserved only in Sacred Tradition.

We also know they accepted it by their teaching and practices. Jesus, for example, went to the Feast of Lights at the Temple, a feast instituted in the Deuterocanonical period, described in the Book of Maccabees. If He had wanted to show this was a “tradition of men” then He surely would not have hallowed it by His presence at that time.

He also taught about the role of the Seat of Moses, a concept preserved only in Sacred Tradition, and which He transferred to His Aposltes.

From Robertson’s NT word pictures:
The parallels drawn by Matthew between the history of Israel and the birth and infancy of Jesus are not mere fancy. History repeats itself and writers of history find frequent parallels. Surely Matthew is not beyond the bounds of reason or of fact in illustrating in his own way the birth and infancy of Jesus by the Providence of God in the history of Israel.

This is very interesting, since we see Luke drawing similar parallels about the Ark of the Covenant and Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Not mere fancy!

 

[StTommyMore]

This is a Blog post showing why Sola Scriptura ultimately fails.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

We’re nearing the dreaded 1000 mark folks. Last 25 posts.

 

[ron77nyc]

This is a Blog post showing why Sola Scriptura ultimately fails.

Sola Scriptura has not been a complete failure. Those who preach SS have brought the gospel to places where the Catholic Church was not able to reach. Today these communities are recognized as imperfectly joined but nevertheless joined to the Catholic Church.

Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

 

[guanophore]

So if the Holy Spirit helped the man with his notes, you could be speaking against the Holy Spirit.

To the extent that his commentary is consistent with what the HS has already revealed to the church, I am confident that He was helped by the HS. I actually think that is the majority of his commentary. However, where his notes oppose what the HS has already revealed, I am equally confident that he is in error, and the HS does not lead into error.

 

[guanophore]

What does historical context have to do with it? If you want to be a Feeneyite you can be one and still be a Catholic. Just go to the Traditional Catholicism forum on CAF. There are plenty of Feeneyites there.

Ron, have I told you how grateful I am that you are not promoting yourself as a Catholic? I really am.

I would appreciate it also if you would refrain from making spreading lies about the Catholic faith. I sense a tone of resentment in this post, and I understand how you might feel that way, but falling into the promoting of error is not the answer.

The Church has ruled definitively that Feeeyism is heretical. One cannot hold to this heresy and be in right relationship with the Church. The Church is working hard to bring the souls of those who have been tainted by this into the fullness of Truth.

also, Truth is not determined by those who depart from it. If people have fallen away from Catholicity, it is wrong to say “they can still be Catholic”. If I claim to be a turnip, that does not make me one.

Then they would be outside the Church seeking God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, trying in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience so they too could be saved according to the catechism.

Yes, and I am sure some of them are, but that does not mean they are sound in Catholicity. When one embraces a teaching that is contrary to Catholic faith, one disrupts the unity of faith. Such a person is no longer a Catholic in good standing.

 

[Dokimas]

To the extent that his commentary is consistent with what the HS has already revealed to the church, I am confident that He was helped by the HS. I actually think that is the majority of his commentary. However, where his notes oppose what the HS has already revealed, I am equally confident that he is in error, and the HS does not lead into error.

If I said the very same thing about the CC, I’d be called anti-catholic. Funny how that works. BTW, that’s exactly what I think because all humans understand, at best, in part and unclearly.

 

[ron77nyc]

Ron, have I told you how grateful I am that you are not promoting yourself as a Catholic? I really am.

There is a mindset that comes with being a loyal Catholic, which I do not have. It says that the Church cannot teach error so if I see an error I must be wrong because the Church cannot err. So if the Church teaches only Catholics can be saved and then changes that teaching by inventing the “invisible church” which by the way never existed in all of Catholic history, that’s OK but it’s not OK for any other religion to discover or develop a truth that never existed before.

 

[PRmerger]

There is a mindset that comes with being a loyal Catholic, which I do not have. It says that the Church cannot teach error so if I see an error I must be wrong because the Church cannot err. So if the Church teaches only Catholics can be saved and then changes that teaching by inventing the “invisible church” which by the way never existed in all of Catholic history, that’s OK but it’s not OK for any other religion to do that.

You must then believe that the Church “invented” the dogma of the Trinity, which was not formally defined for centuries?

 

[ron77nyc]

You must then believe that the Church “invented” the dogma of the Trinity, which was not formally defined for centuries?

The trinity was not clearly defined for centuries but “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” was clearly defined and then undefined. I don’t have a problem with the change. I have a problem when there is a denial of the change.

 

[PRmerger]

The trinity was not clearly defined for centuries

Yes. So you see an example, among a multitude, of doctrinal development.

but “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” was clearly defined and then undefined.

It was never “undefined”. Never ever.

Pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics can not have a share in life eternal if they remain outside the Catholic church.

Do you know what your church teaches about Baptism, ron? It seems as if you’re not aware of this teaching. Perhaps this would help if you studied it?

 

[PRmerger]

The trinity was not clearly defined for centuries but “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” was clearly defined and then undefined. I don’t have a problem with the change. I have a problem when there is a denial of the change.

I would love to be in on a dialogue between you and a fundamentalist Muslim, trying to explain the Trinity.

Ron: We do not believe there are multiple Gods. Christianity worships One God.
Muslim: But you believe Jesus is God. And He is not the Father.
Ron: Yes, but there are 3 different persons, but One God.
Muslim: Then you believe in 3 gods.
Ron: No, 3 persons, One God.
Muslim: Then you believe in 3 gods. You said so yourself.
Ron: No! I said we believe in One God, but 3 persons.
Muslim: But you believe Jesus is God and He is not the Father. More than one god.
Ron: No! We believe in One God, 3 persons.
Muslim: Well, if you believe…



You’re so fundamentalist in your viewpoint regarding EENS that you are unable to grasp the abstract. :sad_yes:

 

[ron77nyc]

You’re so fundamentalist in your viewpoint regarding EENS that you are unable to grasp the abstract. :sad_yes:

The Church of the middle ages did not teach this:

“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.”

 

[PRmerger]

The trinity was not clearly defined for centuries but “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” was clearly defined and then undefined. I don’t have a problem with the change. I have a problem when there is a denial of the change.

I have given this analogy before, but I’m repeating as I think it’s apropos. While it is not a perfect analogy, I think it makes the point of how doctrine develops but does not “change”.

Let’s say that I am working in an Emergency Unit and someone brings in a guy who was attacked by a wild animal. That’s all the medical providers need to know at this point. Later, as he recovers he’s able to tell us that the wild animal was a big black female bear. Later on we find that the mama bear had rabies and now the patient needs treatment for that.

See how the story has been refined, but not changed? The initial story: “a guy was attacked by a wild animal” is still true. But now we have more refined info.

[SIGN1]Change would be: the guy was actually in a drunken knife fight at a bar.[/SIGN1]

And if we said, “Hey! We’ve always said the guy was in a drunken fight at a bar; we never said he was attacked by a wild animal”, then, you would have a valid criticism of the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

The Church of the middle ages did not teach this:

“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.”

And why would they have taught it? There were no Protestants, yes?

 

[ron77nyc]

And why would they have taught it? There were no Protestants, yes?

As I said before; there were no Protestants but there were Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, followers of Confucius, Hindus and pagans who worshipped many gods (Africans, Egyptians) I’m sure I haven’t included everyone. These were all excluded from salvation.

The Vatican II Catechism offers hope of salvation to all the above and Protestants.