The only axiom I can think of at the heart of Catholicism which is unprovable is that Jesus was God Incarnate.

What would you consider an unprovable axiom?

The Catholic Church is based on certain Truths revealed by God--would these be your unproven/unprovable axioms?

Jack Chick is misinformed and perpetuates his misinformation by misinforming others. He claims to be honest and Christ-loving.

Judas claimed to love Christ. He seemed to be misinformed as to the role of the Messiah.

Pax,

If there is one thing you have taught me again and again (and again) it is to not take the literal literally. Catholicism is so enormous that it is extremely easy to take literal paragraphs out of context and construct whatever argument you wish. Can you really be so sure that Protestants are going to hell that you would risk your own salvation? Because in my CCC even Jews can go to heaven.

Please cite the passage.

Problem is, there ain't no literal passage because if there was he wouldn't take it literally.

Are you sure that you understand Pax?

This applies in full force to those who are aware of what they are doing; to others, in a more mitigated way.


I did not claim that.


I'm not talking about Jack Chick types. I'm talking about sincerely misinformed people who might even end up as Catholics some day. You know they exist as well as I do.

Sure, I do. But will a non-Catholic lurker know what you meant?

You opinion only. We are talking about the dogmas of the Church here. Not anyone's opinion. The dogmas of the Church are not opinions. If you do not know the difference then butt out.



What do you think this is: Claiming scattered and disunited Protestants are good followers of Christ.

You and Teacher and Sarah and a bunch of others imply it every time we get into these conversations.

Protestants = heretics ans aschismatics = non-members of Body of Christ = people not in communion with Christ



Then, when and if they become Catholics, then they can be saved, but not as Protestants.

Protestants cannot be saved until they stop being Protestants and become subjects of the Roman Pontiff.

It is a dogma of the Faith that only those who are subject to the Roman Pontiff can be saved.

Quit pretending this dogma does not exist.

Then how do you interpret the CCC Pax? -

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/819.htm

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

I posted the link, and the paragraph. Are you saying this was just thrown in at the last minute to help the Church seem "politically correct?"

Saralaughs

The most obvious example is the practice of valid infant Baptisms used by heretics and schismatics. There is only one Baptism. When a heretic or schismatic validly baptizes an infant that infant is fully incorporated into the one true Church of Christ: the holy Roman Catholic Church. They are a new creation in Christ filled with Sanctifying Grace. When they reach the age of reason and they consciously reject the Church --as do some raised in the Church-- and when they consciously accept heretical doctrines and practice schism, then they lose both membership in the Church and Sanctifying Grace.

And before you get on to invincible ignorance, just consider that heresy is always heresy no matter if the person is culpable or not, and schism is always schism no matter if the person is culpable or not. But it is not so much likely these two sins (yes, they are sins) will be their downfall, but the fact they have no recourse to the forgiveness of sins in the confessional. And before you get on about making acts of perfect contrition, consider that you and I both live the sacramental life, and we have probably never made an act of perfect contrition, so what chance do you think someone outside the sacramental life has?

Why does every thread turn into a debate on extra ecclesiam nulla salis?

I wouldn't equate revealed truth with unprovable axioms, because some revealed truths can be arrived at by the use of natural reason.

Why does somebody in every thread post something that is a denial of EENS?

That is what gets the debate going.

Stop denying it and we will stop debating it.

The concern seems to be that you stress the wrong parts of the things you quote. "Having elements of" and "using as a means of salvation" means that they have some of the things that are needed to attain salvation --- they broke off from the Church and retained some of the Church's teachings while denying others --- and that people may be led to the Church through those ecclesial communities. It doesn't mean that just being in those communities gives you a free pass to heaven.

I'm concerned that you seem to be telling non-Catholics that it's okay for them to just be devoted to their own ecclesial community and they'll get to heaven. Whether you mean it or not, that is how you are coming across, at least to some of us.

Being a member of any ecclesial community should, if that person is open to the truth, lead that person to the Catholic Church.

You still don't seem to understand that anyone who rejects the Church and prefers to stay in their ecclesial community is putting their soul in peril. Something you said elsewhere, that "people can't reject what is not placed in their heart", seems to me that you are saying that a person can reject the Church and still attain heaven if they weren't called to the Church in the first place. That isn't true. Everyone who is baptized in the Trinitarian formula is called to the Holy Catholic Church. They are baptized into her and failing to follow that call places them outside the Church.

Then WHY do the priests I know, and have asked tell me otherwise? It seems to me that if there is absolutely NO salvation outside of being a full-fledged member of the Roman Catholic Church while alive on this earth, it would say so in no uncertain terms in the CCC. I mean, why even have it to where it can be debated like we are doing at all? Am I to believe people here over others who are ordained, like Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, who states emphatically that what you are telling me is false?

And again, I've never "encouraged" anyone to stay a Protestant. I never would do that. But I'm not going to lie to anyone who asks this question either. Only God and the Holy Spirit can change someone's heart ultimately. Please read these links and then tell me why I should believe you over the Monsignor and over Fr. Ryland from "This Rock."

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mod ... nteens.htm

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

I didn't say that one has to be a full-fledged member of the Catholic Church. I have stated elsewhere, to you, that one may be in communion with the Holy Catholic Church in ways known only to God. What you must understand is that these are very rare exceptions, not the rule. For someone to attain salvation while not being a full-fledged member of the Holy Catholic Church cannot be said to be a commonplace occurrence. It is far more likely to not happen than to happen.

It's hard enough for Catholics to attain salvation, why should it be any easier for non-Catholics?

Again, my problem with the way you word things is that you don't stress the difficulty of a non-Catholic attaining salvation. You make it seem like a cake walk, and that is putting people's souls in peril. You stress the parts that tickle your (and their) ears while ignoring the important parts.

So, go ahead and blithely assure people that they can get to heaven without joining the Catholic Church, but know that you will have to make an accounting of that on the Last Day. I'm not going to let you do that on this board, unless you start telling them the whole truth about salvation outside the Church and not just the parts that you think will reassure them. Until then, I think it might be prudent of you to refrain from discussing this topic with non-Catholics.

If a person is walking towards the edge of a 1000000000 foot precipice, it is possible that an angel will catch them and they will not fall to the bottom and die. On that possibility, would you choose to fail to warn them about the cliff? Maybe they are really liking the direction they are walking in, and deep in thought, and you would be disturbing them to tell them. God can always choose to perform a miracle and catch them. Why upset them by telling them about the cliff?

Note particularly item three, from the bottom of the first page you linked, Misha:

Again, how do you know this, when the links I posted say otherwise? I'm not reassuring anyone that they should remain protestant, nor have I. I wouldn't even debate this so vehemently if certain people wouldn't post blatant inaccuracies like: "Protestants don't believe in God." That is absurd and why that's okay to write, and it's not okay to state what the CCC says is baffling to me.

I will not encourage anyone to remain a Protestant, because I don't believe in doing that at all. It seems only fair to me that if it's okay to type "Protestants don't believe in God," that it's okay to debate that based on what is taught in our faith.