Which One of These is Not Like the Others?
(06-25-2012, 06:53 PM)jonbhorton Wrote:
(06-25-2012, 06:37 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-25-2012, 05:19 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: Baltimore Catechism 3 explains this concept as well in Question 510:

Quote:Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:

       1 Has been validly baptized;
       2 Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
       3 Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

The semi-colon is very important, as there are Protestants who meet ALL 3, just as there are non-Christians who meet the last two. The semi-colon can join these thoughts, but they are very much able to stand on their own or collectively.

Exactly how is it that you know that there are people, Catholic or not, who meet all 3? You have no way of judging others yet you do any way - you judge them sincere in their error and reward them salvation - same as the NO does.

For every pope, verse and catechism you can misquote to suit your error, I have at least twice as many - so no need to tread that worn out path - explain your theory using: 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" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her...
--Pope Eugene IV,  Cantate Domino 1441
as your spring board for a change - see how that works out.

As for BC's number 2, that is just obvious heresy.

Just admit it - you do not believe in No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. You believe that there is Some Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. You can misinterpret Scripture as 2Peter 3:16 dictates: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. to your heart's content, and you can rewrite defined dogma into meaningless formulas much as you want - but the thing you cannot do is change the Dogma from "No Salvation" to "Some Salvation" no matter how hard you try.

How do I know there are people who meet all three? Because grammar and punctuation rules dictate it by the semi-colon, and well, it's just true. If there couldn't be those who meet all three, no semi-colon would be used. But the semi-colon indicates that #'s 2 and 3 can also stand on their own. Theology dictates, in fact, that all three must exist.

You have no argument. Now go find a good orthodox priest, and it won't matter if he's SSPX, FSSP or NO all the way, they'll all say the same thing. You are done. If this were a fight I'd be standing over you telling you getting up is pointless, and I'd be correct.

Now stick a kleenex in your nose and go learn the faith you purport to have.


Walty- you still missing the point.

Yes, indeed, there can be those things which lead to the Church, and many will convert just as many will ignore. There are also those things which lead to the Church but for whatever reason never were able to be capitalized on in terms of a conversion while alive here on earth, though they either live as an invisible member, or die as one.

Salvation is not "normative" outside of the visible Church, it simply is. It is not desirable though. For there is only one true Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ. The visible aspect is but as temporary as Israel was temporary to the Jews, but the visible assists greatly in that journey. Only we don't have to learn a new system because the next time Jesus comes it's the Four Last Things for realz.

Are you reading the sources I'm giving you, or just reading my posts on them? There's clarity, especially in Bishop Morrow's work as he breaks it down more specifically than the BC3; It's sort of like a Summa-lite.

Your definition of the Church is, in my opinion, not traditional.  You keep making this distinction between the visible institution of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Christ which I do not think is orthodox.

And you keep talking about the Summa.  I'm very familiar with the Summa.  I don't think anything written by St. Thomas backs you up in this regard, but you need to provide some citation if you're going to argue otherwise.

Messages In This Thread
Re: Which One of These is Not Like the Others? - by Walty - 06-25-2012, 07:44 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)