Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 8 of 10   [ 186 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:43 am 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
Max Kolbe wrote:
Ellietrish, some of the people who are taking issue with what you're writing are people who don't agree (at least in every particular) with pax's understanding of the dogma in question here.

I'm one of "some of the people" too, in both respects. :fyi:


Here is my understanding of the dogma:

"There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation."

What part of that have I gotten wrong?

Did V2 alter the meaning of that dogma in any way?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:41 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:38 pm
Posts: 8462
Location: United States
Religion: Catholic
ellietrish wrote:
I agree that I've somehow been drawn into a depth that I'm not prepared for with my ordinary Catholic education, but I know that much of the problem arises out of a deeply biased environment where only one party’s ‘errors’ had been identified and attacked. It helps to have a more balanced structure to work and learn within. This is about Jesus and Truth afterall.

Part of what you're seeing may just be that with some other disagreements we have been around this block before. Hence the banned topic, etc. It's also the case that some posters in this forum have, let's say, a very strong interest in this dogma, so perhaps some of us have ended up studying it in a little more depth than we otherwise would have.

Quote:
I have noted, that in Christian Apologetics on the internet, someone is discredited for lack of technical theological literacy, when others employ distinctly unChristlike tactics like scathing sarcasm, contempt, ad hominems and all manner of unbiblical attitudes to bring home points. However, I don’t stop dead thinking that this is how people really are, snarling at the ‘schismatics’ at the Anglican Op Shop or spitting on the ‘heathens’ at the Punjabi takeaway when they buy their Rogan Josh.

Well, yes. The same thing happens with other conversations on the Internet. And yes, as Christians, we should all of us do better.

Quote:
So, it could also be that someone without the Theological education, is still making a valid argument that has support in very proper quarters of the Church.

Let me just put my cards on the table regarding theological education: I'm just a relatively well-read convert myself. I myself don't like credentialism when it's used as a kind of ad hominem dismissal of what a person is saying. (I don't think that's what's happening here -- I think people's credentials were mentioned because others thought you were being dismissive of their arguments -- but I suggest we let that go.)

However, I think there's an overlooked and crucial point that has to be made when you're talking about "very proper quarters of the Church." Earlier, you were appealing to the Magisterium of Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. And I think it's absolutely essential to note that during both pontificates, the Magisterium believed it necessary to address, through the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, widespread misunderstandings of this doctrine in many quarters of the Church. The most definitive of these replies is the document Dominus Iesus, which I think has been cited in a previous conversation, and is well worth a careful read. The lead author of that document is our current Holy Father, and it was put forth by the authority of Blessed John Paul II. And this evidently wasn't sufficient, because under Pope Benedict XVI the CDF again addressed it with a follow-up Q&A addressing questions people had about DI. It has also, for instance, come up in matters involving women religious in the United States.

So this is a doctrine upon which, as I think you yourself have noted, it's very important to stick close to the Magisterium because it's one even many faithful people intent on thinking with the Church are confused about, and it's certainly one that poses the "scandal of particularity" in a culture that is very scandalized by it indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:56 pm 
Offline
Paladin
Paladin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 2:12 am
Posts: 6303
Location: Filii Tonitrui
Religion: Catholic
ellietrish wrote:
I believe that God gave us the Church as a gift to the living and that because we aren’t privy to the mind of God, that after death, souls are entrusted to His mercy alone. The living simply can’t pronounce any final outcome on anyone’s damnation (the erroneous way we used to). Not even your lampooned animist and his 'Great Thumb' flying spagetti monster charge. You say I invented doctrines foreign to the Church, but with hand on heart, I believe that is what you did here.

Quote:
"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


I accept we won't ever have a common ground on this subject, pax. It is a genuine waste of bandwidth to discuss it.



Quote:
pax wrote:
How may they achieve eternal salvation?

How do you achieve eternal salvation?

Are there two different ways in which a person may achieve eternal salvation?

These are the questions you leave unanswered. But they have been answered. They just have not been answered in the CCC. One must seek elsewhere in the official documents of the Magisterium to answer those questions.


As I said in a previous post, my bottom line is that I don’t find the same conflict here that you find. People achieve salvation through the mercy of God. Are there two different ways in which a person may achieve eternal salvation? Well the question was addressed by Jesus Himself…


Here's how I answer the question.
God may save someone by joining them to the Church before they die in some manner unknown to us. We cannot know for sure who but we have speculation as to what kind of condition they must be in so that this may take place.
The conditions were already noted previously (I think): free from mortal sin and invincible ignorance are a few.

The problem is that some people want to make a check list and say “well these people fulfill the conditions on the list, so yeah they're saved.”
The error is thinking that they are for sure saved because they fall into a list of “prerequisites.”

We can only admit that it is a mystery that Jesus may join someone to His Body in extraordinary way before they die.

The other problem is that people say "God may save them" when we should be saying "God may join them to the Catholic Church in some mysterious way."
Hence the dogma of no salvation outside the Church is preserved but at the same time the CCC's statements are also reconciled (the problem with the CCC and Vatican II in my opinion is that they are not explicit enough).

If anyone thinks I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.

_________________
-Alexander
"The proof of love is to suffer for the one you love." -St. Pio
"Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible." -St. Francis of Assisi


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:00 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
I agree with ADL.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:01 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:26 am
Posts: 6067
Location: Illinois
Religion: Catholic
pax wrote:
I agree with ADL.

I dont. And since I just got off a 12 hour shift and am exhausted I will compose an explanation later. After I get some sleep.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:56 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
metal1633 wrote:
pax wrote:
I agree with ADL.

I dont. And since I just got off a 12 hour shift and am exhausted I will compose an explanation later. After I get some sleep.


Aren't you up yet?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:14 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 68570
Location: 1.56381501 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
pax wrote:
I agree with ADL.

Me too. And with pax.

Wait. Have I agreed with pax twice in one day?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:38 pm 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
pax wrote:
I agree with ADL.

Me too. And with pax.

Wait. Have I agreed with pax twice in one day?


Image

"Everything is proceeding exactly as I have foreseen it."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:45 pm 
Offline
Deactived by request

Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:19 pm
Posts: 610
Location: Australia
Religion: Catholic
ADL wrote:
The problem is that some people want to make a check list and say .........

The error is thinking that they are ............

The other problem is that people say ...............

...the problem with the CCC and Vatican II in my opinion is that they are not explicit enough..........



I simply believe you aren't giving the people involved in V2 and the formulation and revision of the CCC, due credit. There are sooo many things that require faith first and foremost, and the first way that as humans, we are to address our doubts is to pray for wisdom and understanding. You have the ultra Traditionals who deal with these things by deeming V2 the Popes and the CCC, heretical. You have the liberals who deal with them by saying it is the work of mortal men and we can take or leave things as we choose. Then there is a class in limbo, caught in these circular arguments trying to make their square pegs round with human logic and creating paradoxes that put the Church into conflict with itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:21 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:38 pm
Posts: 8462
Location: United States
Religion: Catholic
ellietrish wrote:
I simply believe you aren't giving the people involved in V2 and the formulation and revision of the CCC, due credit. There are sooo many things that require faith first and foremost, and the first way that as humans, we are to address our doubts is to pray for wisdom and understanding. You have the ultra Traditionals who deal with these things by deeming V2 the Popes and the CCC, heretical. You have the liberals who deal with them by saying it is the work of mortal men and we can take or leave things as we choose. Then there is a class in limbo, caught in these circular arguments trying to make their square pegs round with human logic and creating paradoxes that put the Church into conflict with itself.

Several of the things you quoted there weren't applied by ADL to Vatican II or the Catechism at all but to people reading the documents of Vatican II or the Catechism in a hermeneutic of rupture. ADL was directly explaining the way he understands those things to be entirely compatible with the magisterial teaching down the ages. I basically agree with him as well.

I get the rather strong impression you are mistakenly conflating the teaching of the Catechism and Vatican II with your own interpretation of that teaching.

Listen, I don't like reading people who say things critically about Vatican II either. Some of the people in this thread can vouch for that, because I've had my back up about it more than once. But his criticism was very mild and qualified with "in my opinion." There was nothing in it remotely like calling the CCC or popes or Vatican II heretical. Likewise there was nothing liberal, and nothing like a circular argument. In fact, he was admirably succinct, irenic and faithful. You would do well to reread.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:26 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 28363
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
ellietrish wrote:
We’re in error here, if our jealousy impels us define God’s mind as excluding those who haven’t worked as hard as us or done it our way.

You are a Pelagian.

We do not merit salvation. God predestines us from all eternity to salvation. Some are saved by baptism as infants and dies as infants, some are sinners all there life and God shows His mercy by giving them the grace of conversion at the very end. While others are holy throughout their life, but God permits that they sinned and be damned for all eternity at the end, to manifest His glory and that salvation is from Him and what is given is given by God according to His pleasure and not according to "how we work"

And baptism and Faith is not "our way" it is almighty God's way, commanded by the very mouth of our Lord and Savior whilst He was here on earth. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Baptism is necessary for salvation by necessity precept and means, ignorance only excludes the sin that comes from failing to be baptised, it does not make up for being baptised. If the king ordered that all men should go to the capital and receive $5000 under penalty of losing citizenship, a man may well be excused from losing citizenship because he had no way of knowing to come to the city. But he doesn't get the $5000 because ignorant. If God can grant grace outside the sacrament proper, that is one thing.

But don't call it "our way". It is God's way

And don't pretend that "The Church in the modern age" is at all equivalent to saying "Today's magisterium" It is the same magisterium as before. The Magisterium today is not the same thing as today's magisterium

Anyhow. You must realize we are "conceived in sin" and enter this world as children of wrath. No one deserves salvation, and we do not earn salvation. We do not go to heaven by being good. We are saved in spite of the ugliness. And we are made to be good so that we may go to heaven.

BTW, the part bolded in my quote here was taken word for word from Vatican II (Lumen gentium). I don't think anyone engaging with you rejects the council's legitimacy, whatever else might be the case.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:10 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:26 am
Posts: 6067
Location: Illinois
Religion: Catholic
pax wrote:
metal1633 wrote:
pax wrote:
I agree with ADL.

I dont. And since I just got off a 12 hour shift and am exhausted I will compose an explanation later. After I get some sleep.


Aren't you up yet?

Yes I am up and at work again and am still composing my thought and wish to a little research first. Maybe about 3 A.M I will get it done.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:56 pm 
Offline
Deactived by request

Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:19 pm
Posts: 610
Location: Australia
Religion: Catholic
Max Kolbe wrote:
ellietrish wrote:
I simply believe you aren't giving the people involved in V2 and the formulation and revision of the CCC, due credit. There are sooo many things that require faith first and foremost, and the first way that as humans, we are to address our doubts is to pray for wisdom and understanding. You have the ultra Traditionals who deal with these things by deeming V2 the Popes and the CCC, heretical. You have the liberals who deal with them by saying it is the work of mortal men and we can take or leave things as we choose. Then there is a class in limbo, caught in these circular arguments trying to make their square pegs round with human logic and creating paradoxes that put the Church into conflict with itself.

Several of the things you quoted there weren't applied by ADL to Vatican II or the Catechism at all but to people reading the documents of Vatican II or the Catechism in a hermeneutic of rupture. ADL was directly explaining the way he understands those things to be entirely compatible with the magisterial teaching down the ages. I basically agree with him as well.

I get the rather strong impression you are mistakenly conflating the teaching of the Catechism and Vatican II with your own interpretation of that teaching.

Listen, I don't like reading people who say things critically about Vatican II either. Some of the people in this thread can vouch for that, because I've had my back up about it more than once. But his criticism was very mild and qualified with "in my opinion." There was nothing in it remotely like calling the CCC or popes or Vatican II heretical. Likewise there was nothing liberal, and nothing like a circular argument. In fact, he was admirably succinct, irenic and faithful. You would do well to reread.


:). I can almost predict now, that no matter what I say ... I could say "outside the Church there is no salvation" or "dogma is infallible"... and everyone will pop in to tell me I'm conflating this with that and am undoubtably wrong and anathema.

I'd written ADL a much longer reply but thought to myself, I don't want to attract any further convoluted debate on everything I said, so I cut it down to what I thought was just my thoughts on the attitude that 'so many things are a problem within the Church... except for me'. Out of that you've gleened all manner of error spilling from my keyboard.

Anyway, I shall leave the problems of the Church to the experts among you and sit back and watch.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:28 am 
Offline
Paladin
Paladin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 2:12 am
Posts: 6303
Location: Filii Tonitrui
Religion: Catholic
ellietrish wrote:
ADL wrote:
The problem is that some people want to make a check list and say .........

The error is thinking that they are ............

The other problem is that people say ...............

...the problem with the CCC and Vatican II in my opinion is that they are not explicit enough..........



I simply believe you aren't giving the people involved in V2 and the formulation and revision of the CCC, due credit.


Have you studied the history of Vatican II? A whole other topic altogether, but the intention to purposely use ambiguity is explicitly stated by those men working in and around the council.

Quote:
There are sooo many things that require faith first and foremost, and the first way that as humans, we are to address our doubts is to pray for wisdom and understanding. You have the ultra Traditionals who deal with these things by deeming V2 the Popes and the CCC, heretical. You have the liberals who deal with them by saying it is the work of mortal men and we can take or leave things as we choose. Then there is a class in limbo, caught in these circular arguments trying to make their square pegs round with human logic and creating paradoxes that put the Church into conflict with itself.


Just to be clear: I haven't read the whole thread, I just read the part a few pages ago where you and Pax are talking and you brought up the CCC and he brought up some questions. I wanted to share my answers to those questions; I have no idea what you believe on this subject, just wanted to share my opinion.

But anyway..

There are also those who think if something seems to contradict previous teaching they throw their hands up and say “to heck with it – it's too hard to reconcile this so I will say the new teaching is a 'development.'”
Unfortunately the CCC is not immune to being vague and the Second Vatican Council is not either, no council is.

And then there are those who like to take Vatican II and interpret it in light of Tradition, previous teachings from Pope or councils, to create a harmony. I would like to think I am in this group.

To interpret this in light of Tradition, here is my logical conclusion:
1. The Dogma is that there is no salvation outside the Church.
2. CCC: “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 etc. etc.”
3. Therefore anyone saved who is not a card carrying member of the Church must somehow be joined to the Catholic Church before they die (explained in the previous post).

I have found no other way to interpret this without contradicting previous teachings. And we all know teachings cannot change for that would be the heresy of Modernism.

Another way of looking at this: The Catholic Church and Mystical Body of Christ are one and the same. If someone is saved “outside” the Church then they are “saved” outside of Christ. This is impossible. No one can be saved without Christ. They must be joined to Christ in order to be saved by His sacrifice on the Cross. Therefore they must be joined to the Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church.

_________________
-Alexander
"The proof of love is to suffer for the one you love." -St. Pio
"Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible." -St. Francis of Assisi


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:26 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:26 am
Posts: 6067
Location: Illinois
Religion: Catholic
pax wrote:
metal1633 wrote:
pax wrote:
I agree with ADL.

I dont. And since I just got off a 12 hour shift and am exhausted I will compose an explanation later. After I get some sleep.


Aren't you up yet?

I said I would explain myself but everything I want to say I have said before and really am not in the mood to repeat myself. If you insist then I will but do not hold your breath because it may be some time before I do so.

Sorry.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 6:25 am 
Offline
Deactived by request

Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:19 pm
Posts: 610
Location: Australia
Religion: Catholic
ADL wrote:
Have you studied the history of Vatican II? A whole other topic altogether, but the intention to purposely use ambiguity is explicitly stated by those men working in and around the council.


Why?


Quote:
There are also those who think if something seems to contradict previous teaching they throw their hands up and say “to heck with it – it's too hard to reconcile this so I will say the new teaching is a 'development.'”


But are you saying this of the Magisterium? it's not liberals and radicals that are saying that, for example...


Quote:
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965


This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church's full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).


Quote:
Unfortunately the CCC is not immune to being vague and the Second Vatican Council is not either, no council is.


You may be right that we need to have reservations about everything in the Catechism, I'm simply not ready to concede that because my formation as a young Catholic, didn't allow for that.

Quote:
And then there are those who like to take Vatican II and interpret it in light of Tradition, previous teachings from Pope or councils, to create a harmony. I would like to think I am in this group.


The document above just called that to 'develop'.

Quote:
To interpret this in light of Tradition, here is my logical conclusion:
1. The Dogma is that there is no salvation outside the Church.
2. CCC: “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 etc. etc.”
3. Therefore anyone saved who is not a card carrying member of the Church must somehow be joined to the Catholic Church before they die (explained in the previous post).


However, this is not what pax was saying. He said one must be a baptised card carrying member of the Catholic Church to be saved. An animist who worships 'the Great Thumb' was expressly excluded for one, he said. So, what you are saying, is more ambiguous than what pax has maintained over a number of different threads.

Quote:
I have found no other way to interpret this without contradicting previous teachings. And we all know teachings cannot change for that would be the heresy of Modernism.


Other than pax's interpretation that Gods grace would result in everyone who 'implicitly' desired God, finding a little Church with a Baptismal font and being baptised into the card carrying membership up to a millisecond before death. Without that, one is damned.

Quote:
Another way of looking at this: The Catholic Church and Mystical Body of Christ are one and the same. If someone is saved “outside” the Church then they are “saved” outside of Christ. This is impossible. No one can be saved without Christ. They must be joined to Christ in order to be saved by His sacrifice on the Cross. Therefore they must be joined to the Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church.


That's how I understand the CCC to mean, but I just thought that was a given.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:18 am 
Offline
Honeymoon King
Honeymoon King
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 4:39 pm
Posts: 44272
Location: in marital bliss
Religion: One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree K of C, L of M
ellietrish wrote:
However, this is not what pax was saying. He said one must be a baptised card carrying member of the Catholic Church to be saved. An animist who worships 'the Great Thumb' was expressly excluded for one, he said. So, what you are saying, is more ambiguous than what pax has maintained over a number of different threads.


You need to think very critically about what your position is here.

How does one who is called by God, and endowed with sufficient grace for salvation, continue to worship a deity (i.e. the Great Thumb) he now knows by both the light of natural reason, and the illumination of grace, to be false? (cf. Naaman the Syrian)

What are the outward signs of Election? of damnation? (cf. Matthew 25)

You need to seriously think about and answer these questions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:24 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:38 pm
Posts: 8462
Location: United States
Religion: Catholic
ellietrish wrote:
Out of that you've gleened all manner of error spilling from my keyboard.

No, what I gleaned was that I thought you had read ADL in a somewhat ungenerous manner. I'm genuinely sorry you feel the same is being done to you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:48 pm 
Offline
Paladin
Paladin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 2:12 am
Posts: 6303
Location: Filii Tonitrui
Religion: Catholic
ellietrish wrote:
ADL wrote:
Have you studied the history of Vatican II? A whole other topic altogether, but the intention to purposely use ambiguity is explicitly stated by those men working in and around the council.


Why?


Why what? Why study Vatican II or why did they do that to the texts?
The texts are sometimes ambiguous and purposely so. It’s not too much of a problem if we look at all Church documents as a whole instead of isolating things to VII and the CCC especially if it’s a difficult area such as EENS.
I will give an example below to help clarify, just keep reading.


Quote:
Quote:
There are also those who think if something seems to contradict previous teaching they throw their hands up and say “to heck with it – it's too hard to reconcile this so I will say the new teaching is a 'development.'”


But are you saying this of the Magisterium? it's not liberals and radicals that are saying that, for example...


Quote:
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965


This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church's full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).


Let me put it another way.
Development does not equal change/evolution.
What I am saying is that there are those who think Church teachings have evolved or changed and they would like to erroneously call it a “development.”
Vatican II did not change Church doctrine.
When the council says "develop" it does not mean "change meaning."
Arguments can be made if it developed doctrine or not but it cannot change doctrine insofar as to contradict past teaching.

Here’s a real life example:

I had a professor at college who thought Church teaching changed on the matter of the primary function of marriage. He thought it was both procreation and conjugal relations. The correct teaching is that procreation is the primary function and not both equally.

He taught this based on the texts of Vatican II. He taught that a changed occurred in the teaching on marriage and considered it a “development.” His thinking was wrong because it meant the Church changed her mind – impossible.
What the council is talking about is a development which seeks to make things clearer and provide a deeper understanding without contradicting previous teaching. What my professor was saying is that doctrine changed to mean something completely different; his concept of development is wrong.


Secondly, as it pertains to your “why” question above, this particular instance of VII has a back story behind it. The reason why VII left out the explicit definition of marriage is because some liberal block(s) at the council wanted to insert the approval of contraception in the text. By destroying the primary function of marriage you pave the way for birth control. But they did not succeed in either of their goals. They did manage to leave it vague. If you want the relative documents and information I can dig it up, but for time and length purposes I don’t want to go hunting –but I can if you want.
But anyway, this is why when reading VII it is best to get the story behind the text, look at the Latin, look at the citations and of course check previous Church teachings (and successive Church teaching) to understand what is being said without contradiction.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
To interpret this in light of Tradition, here is my logical conclusion:
1. The Dogma is that there is no salvation outside the Church.
2. CCC: “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 etc. etc.”
3. Therefore anyone saved who is not a card carrying member of the Church must somehow be joined to the Catholic Church before they die (explained in the previous post).


However, this is not what pax was saying. He said one must be a baptised card carrying member of the Catholic Church to be saved. An animist who worships 'the Great Thumb' was expressly excluded for one, he said. So, what you are saying, is more ambiguous than what pax has maintained over a number of different threads.


Well.. pax just agreed with me. So I am not sure what is going on here.
Second, if my formula was ambiguous which part was specifically a problem? I admit that I did leave out the conditions which must be necessary for salvation because it seems that they were already gone over.

Quote:
Quote:
I have found no other way to interpret this without contradicting previous teachings. And we all know teachings cannot change for that would be the heresy of Modernism.


Other than pax's interpretation that Gods grace would result in everyone who 'implicitly' desired God, finding a little Church with a Baptismal font and being baptised into the card carrying membership up to a millisecond before death. Without that, one is damned.

I suppose we would have to get into matters of predestination here..
My understanding is what PED explained earlier:
Quote:
"Can an adult who lacks the sacrament of baptism be saved?" (and this from the force of the words you used is the heard of the question you ask)

Yes. God can through absolutely no merits whatsoever of the person bestow grace on that person to turn towards Him, and He can can, should baptism be prevented, grace of charity wherewith that person is justified...not by any merit of their own, but solely on God's mercy

I cannot speak for pax here, as re-reading the thread (I don’t have much time today) I was unable to find the context of pax’s statement. He can speak for himself. My goal was to point out that such people who may be saved must be joined to the Church somehow, in some way before they die through the Mercy of God in order to be saved; else we have a contradiction of previous Church teaching.

Quote:
Quote:
Another way of looking at this: The Catholic Church and Mystical Body of Christ are one and the same. If someone is saved “outside” the Church then they are “saved” outside of Christ. This is impossible. No one can be saved without Christ. They must be joined to Christ in order to be saved by His sacrifice on the Cross. Therefore they must be joined to the Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church.


That's how I understand the CCC to mean, but I just thought that was a given.


Well, then we have no problem here?

_________________
-Alexander
"The proof of love is to suffer for the one you love." -St. Pio
"Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible." -St. Francis of Assisi


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WITH ZENO'S PERMISSION: Did V2 alter any defined dogma?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:39 pm 
Offline
Deactived by request

Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:19 pm
Posts: 610
Location: Australia
Religion: Catholic
Let me assure you as I've assured the thread before. I have not now or never exerienced the CCC with angst or conflict and came in defense of it and not to prove EENs wrong. This strawmen is continually construed by some of the members but I reject that.

It was interesting to hear the background behind the wording on marriage and more than that it actually respects that flawed human nature is inclined to taking a rule in isolation to misrepresent the whole for personal satisfaction.

The CCC gives direction on treating of itself in the Prologue..."18 This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety. It should be seen therefore as a unified whole."

Being a poet and with a great appreciation for the mystics, I actually adore the way the CCC teaches using logic defying juxtapositions (such as the articles regarding Salvation) that engage the soul and challenge the faithful to obedience and humility. So whether there are logical formulaic methods for composing it, the beautiful consequence is a mystical treatise.

I think it's harder by virtue of disposition for some people to be open and submissive to mystery and paradox in general and I think perhaps they fear that everyone is like themselves and it becomes a noble mission to eliminate all seeming dangers, including innocent people. You even see among some fundamentally Orthodox religions, periods of history where the Churchs mystics are persecuted and killed. That's how insanely irrational, unfounded fear can affect people.

If I had enough skill to contribute something to this issue, it would be assure a person of the Holy Spirits presence in drawing the faithful in through these 'folds' and shadows created because the CCC "is not explicit enough".


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 8 of 10   [ 186 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to: