Which One of These is Not Like the Others?
#21
(06-24-2012, 10:30 PM)JayneK Wrote: I did not convert directly from Judaism to Catholicism.  I spend some years as a Fundamentalist Protestant.  It was a position closer to the truth than I had been and was a step that helped me to become Catholic.  Being Protestant was a means of truth and grace for me.

No one is arguing that there is not truth in Protestantism.  Nor is anyone arguing that God cannot call anyone to the Church from any state in life.  What is being challenged is the idea that Protestantism itself is a means of salvation.

If it is a means of salvation, then your conversion wasn't strictly necessary.
Reply
#22
(06-24-2012, 10:38 PM)Walty Wrote:
(06-24-2012, 10:30 PM)JayneK Wrote: I did not convert directly from Judaism to Catholicism.  I spend some years as a Fundamentalist Protestant.  It was a position closer to the truth than I had been and was a step that helped me to become Catholic.  Being Protestant was a means of truth and grace for me.

No one is arguing that there is not truth in Protestantism.  Nor is anyone arguing that God cannot call anyone to the Church from any state in life.  What is being challenged is the idea that Protestantism itself is a means of salvation.

If it is a means of salvation, then your conversion wasn't strictly necessary.

Right.

According to the dogma, if you died a protestant, you would not have been saved. There is no "may have made it" or "possibly made it" - no maybe's.

The Fr. Rodriguez video in this OP is pretty self explanatory when he gets to that part....... http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...713.0.html
Reply
#23
(06-24-2012, 10:17 PM)jonbhorton Wrote:
(06-24-2012, 09:44 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Like I said, clearly, the last quote in the OP reduces the dogma to a meaningless formula.

The quote as provided specifically in the OP, or the real quote, which is referenced in the OP, though incorrectly quoted?

By your other post, I'd guess the latter. But since it makes a big dang difference, and I'm really trying to not read into something someone says when they mean the opposite, I'd like clarification before I answer that.

The last quote as provided specifically in the OP.

What it all amounts to is that quote says - and most people believe - that there is "some salvation outside the Church" - because "God can do whatever he wants" and "we never know" - hence people often tend to judge salvation is granted to many who are not Catholic, ie who are outside the Church - - which, of course, renders the dogma meaningless.

In order for the dogma to be interpreted in such a way as to mean opposite of what it really means, it needs to be reduced to an affirmation from a dogma and then reformulated positively - as the CCC has done, which then the CCC agrees with the last quote in the OP, but still reduces the actual dogma to a meaningless formula.

Reply
#24
Baptism brings one into the Church. It's not that false sects are means of salvations. Unfortunately, many on this thread are not correctly presenting the Church's salvation dogma. I hope Walty or another erudite member can illustrate it.
Reply
#25
(06-24-2012, 11:13 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Baptism brings one into the Church. It's not that false sects are means of salvations. Unfortunately, many on this thread are not correctly presenting the Church's salvation dogma. I hope Walty or another erudite member can illustrate it.

I think it can be said that they are brought into the Church with baptism but divorce themselves from the Church when they reach an age of reason and reject Her for a heretical group.  At that point, it is certainly reducing the Church's dogma to a meaningless formula to say that an individual can still attain salvation while in this state.

I think that Stubborn's last post was spot on.
Reply
#26
(06-24-2012, 10:59 PM)Stubborn Wrote: What it all amounts to is that quote says - and most people believe - that there is "some salvation outside the Church" - because "God can do whatever he wants" and "we never know" - hence people often tend to judge salvation is granted to many who are not Catholic, ie who are outside the Church - - which, of course, renders the dogma meaningless.

Very well said.
Reply
#27
(06-24-2012, 11:20 PM)Walty Wrote:
(06-24-2012, 10:59 PM)Stubborn Wrote: What it all amounts to is that quote says - and most people believe - that there is "some salvation outside the Church" - because "God can do whatever he wants" and "we never know" - hence people often tend to judge salvation is granted to many who are not Catholic, ie who are outside the Church - - which, of course, renders the dogma meaningless.

Very well said.
Walty & Stubborn are correct.

Well said! THIS
Reply
#28
Absolument, oui.
Reply
#29
MIRARI VOS, ON LIBERALISM AND RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE GREGORY XVI, AUGUST 15, 1832 Wrote:13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism"[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him,"[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate."[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me."[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"[20]

Quote:The fundamental idea of the Second Vatican Council and especially of the Decree on Ecumenism is: communio.[15] This is essential to the correct understanding of the talk of  “elemente ecclesiae”. This phrase gives a quantitative, almost materialistic impression, as though one could count these elements and check whether the number is complete. This “ecclesiology of elements” was criticised already during the Council and even more so after the Council.[16] But Unitatis redintegratio did not stop at this point; the Decree on Ecumenism does not view the separated churches and ecclesial communities simply as entities which have retained a limited stock of elements, different in each instance, but able to be quantitatively determined; rather, it sees each as an integral whole which gives expression to those elements within the totality of its ecclesiological understanding.

That occurs with the aid of the concept of “communio”. With this concept drawn from the Bible and the early church the Council circumscribes the most profound mystery of the church, which is formed as it were as an icon of the trinity in the image of the trinitarian communio (LG, 4; UR, 2). Communio and communio sanctorum originally meant not the communion of Christians with one another but sharing (participatio) in the goods of salvation, in the sancta or the sacramenta.

Fundamental to this is baptism. It is the sacrament of faith, whereby those who have been baptised belong to the one body of Christ which is the church. Non-Catholic Christians are therefore not outside of the one church, they already belong to it in a most fundamental way (LG, 11, 14; UR, 22). On the basis of the one common baptism ecumenism goes far beyond simple goodwill and friendliness, it is not a form of church diplomacy; it has an ontological foundation and an ontological depth, it is an event of the Spirit.
Reply
#30
Subsistit in?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)