Which One of These is Not Like the Others?
#61
To continue above (this thread seems to be going too fast to feasibly edit and not have things get even more confusing)

It definitely would be best if there was more clear language. It's an unfortunate position. The clerics really do speak a different language in a sense. The most subtle of words might have the biggest impact. It's going to be up to people like you and me and everyone else to get our heads wrapped around it and find ways to bring it to understanding in the mind of the unbeliever.

We simply can't win this war by fighting our officers. It's counter-insurgency warfare with only smatterings of linear vestiges. A lot is up to the guy on the ground, even little Joe Snuffy.

Think like a guerrilla, but read like a professor. Act like a peasant. Do that, and we shall have a much better impact.
Reply
#62
I don't think uneducated peasants in the Middle Ages ever had to deal with "thinking like a professor."

Our clergy should be teaching in clear and concise forms.  That's that.
Reply
#63
Melkite, according to your own limit on what constitutes the essentials most of the first 7 ecumenical councils become worthless. Afterall, who cares what Ephesus and Chalcedon concerning the Nature(s) of the Second Person? They dont fall under your list of "essentials." But to answer your question I believe those essentials that you listed are those essential beliefs that no Catholic past the age of reason can deny and then claim ignorance as a defense. They are not all that we need to believe, for Christ commands us to follow all that he has commanded of us.
Reply
#64
(06-25-2012, 05:33 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: I don't think uneducated peasants in the Middle Ages ever had to deal with "thinking like a professor."

Our clergy should be teaching in clear and concise forms.  That's that.

Did I say think like a professor? No, I said read like one. I said think like a guerrilla.

This is exactly one of the issues endemic to this thread: lack of reading comprehension and then twisting the words, which I see in droves throughout this thread.

Ya know what the difference between a successful military leader in a well-pressed uniform and a row of medals vs a rag-tag peasant who learned to read and studied tactics, implementing them correctly to win his war?

Nothing, except one has a cooler title. Same with a Professor and one who has just learned to study the same material by thinking in a manner which makes them realize how to emulate without being, and as a guerrilla, thinking like one, having read as a professor- He will win his war while the educated general will rant about hit and run tactics being cowardly. But the general will lose.

Now, the thing is, this thread isn't about the doctrine taught. It's been taught quite clearly. This thread is about people not making use of that which is clearly and easily available. That makes the argument parallel to the accuser as much as the accused. That is exactly what Saint Paul was addressing in Romans 2:3. Why should each Pope or Bishop reinvent the wheel every time he comes into that position? No more than a General should have to hold the hands of his soldiers and teach them to shoot or show them how to shine their boots. He expects his Officers (priests/deacons) to take care of that. He expects his NCOs (mature soldiers in the Church Militant) to make sure the officers have sufficient time and opportunity to complete their duties.

Think militarily. Once you do that, it becomes obvious.

But what a lot of people do is want to play the general while being the private. That doesn't work.

Especially when that makes them the private-general who can't shoot, has boots all scuffed to hell, and has the tactical sense of a dead cat.
Reply
#65
The question of why it was taught the way it was is the most interesting to me. I mean, I suppose it could be argued that the previous Papal statements were clear because everyone studying theology basically knew Aristotlean-Thomistic metaphysics. So implicit in the statement "there is no salvation outside the Church" is an understanding that "Church" is of a certain substantial form beyond matter, just like "human" implies a certain substantial form beyond matter.

In today's world where the average philosophical underpinnings have changed so radically in the direction of materialism, who even understands what the Thomistic conception of a form really is? Now, I believe the Church should fight strongly to restore Thomistic metaphysics in contemporary philosophical discourse, because Thomistic metaphysics is RIGHT ... but, I can understand why She opted for different verbiage to explain a teaching to average people who do not understand the necessary distinctions.
Reply
#66
(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.

Reply
#67
(06-25-2012, 04:02 PM)Walty Wrote: 1) It causes great confusion and, as I have just done, could be explained in a much less scandalous way.  As written, it seems to be saying that being outside of the Church isn't really that big of a deal because one can still be saved.  It's as if God sets up an ordinary means of salvation but then makes exceptions for all the people that don't follow His planned, ordained, ordinary path.

That's precisely what Archbishop Lefebvre held and taught.  See An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, No. 10.

Archbishop Lefebvre:

Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire.  This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion.  They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God.  As priests we must state the truth.

Reply
#68
The problem boils down to the fact that Rome either explicitly states a heretical notion or it speaks in such a way that many, especially your average layman, falls into heresy.  If the CDF was really meaning to say the following then we would be fine:
"There exist some truths in other religions, and the acceptance of those truths (and not what makes those religions distinct from the Catholic Church) can eventually lead one to conversion.  It must be pointed out, however, that false religions provide no grace themselves as they are cut off from Christ's Church and are heretical, schismatic, or worse.  In such a situation, God uses what is evil in order that good may come out of it."

But, unfortunately, this is not what we get at all.  We get the implication that salvation is somewhat normative outside of the visible Catholic Church, and as such, belonging to Her becomes much less important, which is precisely what Pius XII condemned in Humani Generis.

I'd also like to point out that this topic is related to those who know of the Catholic Church.  The pagan, tucked away from civilization in the bush is not relevant to this particular question.
Reply
#69
(06-25-2012, 06:37 PM)DJR Wrote: The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion.  They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God.  As priests we must state the truth.

This, I think, is at odds with the quote from the CDF and what VII states on this matter.  They imply that grace is given through these religions, that they are vehicles at least for grace, and possibly for salvation itself.

That's where the rub is, and it's certainly a large doctrinal deviation.
Reply
#70
(06-25-2012, 06:41 PM)Walty Wrote: The problem boils down to the fact that Rome either explicitly states a heretical notion or it speaks in such a way that many, especially your average layman, falls into heresy.

The heart of the issue of being a "trad."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)