Which One of These is Not Like the Others?
#41
(06-25-2012, 07:08 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-25-2012, 01:47 AM)jonbhorton Wrote:
(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.

Means or... instrument? Let's keep the word usages in line with what Pope Benedict XVI said and as he has used the word before. Once you do that, it becomes very clear what he meant. We are saved by grace through faith and works, no -ism. The -ism is the conduit to the most perfect ability to have everything needed if you just go with it. Those outside the Church are the ones who should be struggling more. However, no one said Protestantism is a means of salvation in terms of the -ism. Just as Protestantism is a heresy whereas there's not very many Protestant heretics in comparison to their forebears. They are, as the Pope says, "a new phenomena". And he's absolutely right. It's just not the super old denominations, as they were. There are "trad" Lutherans too. Anglicans. Even traditional Methodists and Baptists. They've been totally confused and gobsmacked by the "emergent church" and all the free love and insanity it preaches with its rock n roll services.

And even those "trad" Protestants aren't really culpable for the fact of growing up with virtually no exposure to the Church, or without the ability to understand the doctrine of the Church, or even have it explained correctly by one who is responsible for that very thing.

First, I think you are going at this whole thing all backwards because you are starting with the words of PBXVI which clearly do not say what the popes prior to him said.

Next you seem to be justifying his words according to your interpretation or understanding of Protestant culpability, which does not agree with the previous popes or the dogma because whether they are completely or only partially culpable or completely ignorant, matters not since they are not inside the Church - to miss heaven at all is to miss it completely, regardless of the reason, according to the dogma - no?

Next, while it seems true that it will be the parents who actually lost the faith for their children many generations ago - or perhaps only yesterday - who will be held most responsible, that does not mean those still alive, yet who remain outside the church, can hope for salvation when they die because of their own obstinacy in rejecting the graces offered them or the parent's sin - according to the dogma.

As for culpability, there are numerous references in Scripture similar to Num 14:18 The Lord is patient and full of mercy, taking away iniquity and wickedness, and leaving no man clear, who visitest the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. which is saying that the loss of faith of the parents not only does not absolve the children due to ignorance, if anything, the loss of faith aids in condemning them and their future generations - God sure seems to hate it when parents lose the faith for their children - that's the way I read it anyway......................which is why Holy Mother teaches the necessity of not only "persevering in the faith till the end", but also of the responsibility that all parents have of handing down the true faith to your children, so they do the same, and they the same and so on - otherwise, what you say might possibly be conceivable.

??? Thought most here were Thomists... what gives? (more on that)

I could start with Pope #265 or I could start with Pope #100 or I could start with Pope #1, and they'll all be saying the same thing. YOUR position is to automatically come out fighting against the Pope, who, in reality isn't saying anything different from the Popes #1-264. Because of the continuity of the Faith, and that this position is from the beginning of the Church, and even St. Paul writes about it: I'm definitely on the right track and going at it fine.

My understanding of Protestant, et al culpability is perfectly in line with the Popes, as it is in line with the Bible if one just thinks logically about the larger picture, instead of seeing a gradient and focusing on a pixel. Specifically, a comprehensive reading of Romans will connect the dots for ya if you know the Gospel and the rest of the Epistles. You're the one who is wrong. I say again, YOU are wrong.

And ya know what? Even Saint Thomas Aquinas agrees with the position I hold. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm


So let's review: The Bible, The Popes, The Church's documents, and Saint Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica all mesh with my position.

Your position is built on the sandy land of yourself, not the Rock which is St. Peter or his successors.

*****If this applies to you, fine. If not, no reason to get upset about it.*****:

What are you people good for?

Half of you just flat out don't know doctrine, haven't read the Bible, don't even know what Saint Thomas actually says despite "being a Thomist" like some prep-school jacket wearing idiot who actually goes to public school; You slander the Holy Father forthwith without provocation, assume him stupid, assume him a heretic- all the while yourself not knowing what you're talking about and espousing heresy as Gospel. You trash the Schismatics, yet maintain quasi-schismatic mentalities.

Well, guess what, this super strict version like is being propagated here is heresy unto itself. It's causing you to enter a mentality which could lead to schism.

So basically, you're exactly what you supposedly fight against.

And lo and behold, Romans 2's first verses answer this charge exactly as St. Paul goes on to explain the concept:
Quote:Wherefore you are inexcusable, O man, whosoever you are that judge. For wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you do the same things which you judge. 2 For we know that the judgment of God is, according to truth, against them that do such things. 3 And do you think this, O man, that judge them who do such things and do the same, that you shall escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of his goodness and patience and longsuffering? Do you not know that the benignity of God leads you to penance? 5 But according to your hardness and impenitent heart, you treasure up to yourself wrath, against the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God: 6 Who will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed who, according to patience in good works, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious and who obey not the truth but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. 9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that works evil: of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory and honour and peace to every one that works good: to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For whosoever have sinned without the law shall perish without the law: and whosoever have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law. 13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God: but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these, having not the law, are a law to themselves. 15 Who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them: and their thoughts between themselves accusing or also defending one another, 16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

No wonder so many of you hate the Jews, you just see yourself in them through a glass, darkly.

Turn to the Gospel and let there be light! For by having our back to the Light, we see all things in which are found iniquity and we judge these things on the merit of that light, but by turning to the Light, we must judge ourselves, for it penetrates us.

Take off your armor of hardness and put on the armor of God, which is found first in the Love of God.

Quit acting like ancient Israel, smug, and choosing not to believe in a God of mercy who brings in the unbelievers to Him in the most unfathomable of ways. Even Saint Thomas Aquinas says so, and all the Popes, the Bible, many Saints, and now I tell you this in communion with the information they have provided, upheld, and which God Himself inspired to be written:

Quote:33 O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! 34 For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counsellor? 35 Or who has first given to him, and recompense shall be made him? 36 For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things: to him be glory for ever. Amen.

There is no salvation outside the Church, this is true. But that physical building we see is no more the Church than the finiteness of Christ's physical, human body, was all of God. But the Church is the best way to get to God, through Christ Our Lord, Who, as God, has destined that there be the Way, the Truth and the Life understood by all hearts, and sought- though not always able to be perfectly known.

And in this seeking, many who were not Catholics shall find themselves purged of their sin's stain in Purgatory and in perfection shall be saved having been justified by works and faith, whose font is the grace of God. God, recompensed for that thing given, gives back.

Is it perfect? No, that is best found in the Catholic Faith.

Desirable? No,  this is best done in the Catholic Faith.

But can a "non-Catholic" go to heaven? Bet that butt they can.

Read your Bibles, learn the Faith, learn to read the documents correctly.

At this point, half of you are no better than the NO crowd who starts and ends with Vatican 2 documents. You're just on the other end of the pendulum's swing.

Know the faith and be able to defend it! This is a battle, y'all. You are SOLDIERS in the Church Militant.

Just because we know the battle is objectively won does NOT mean we get to subjectively celebrate. That battle is won in eternity, for sure, but there is a physical, time-based battle as well, and we need good soldiers.

Right now you're friggin' F Troop.
Reply
#42
(06-25-2012, 09:20 AM)GloriaPatri Wrote: Does the passage in VatII and the CDF response necessarily mean that those who die in protestant/orthodox churches can be saved? Or could means of salvation potentially mean what I thought it meant, that God could use them as a transitory means to bring someone from heathenism to Catholic truth?

It could mean either - which is why it clearly does not agree with what the other popes stated clearly.



Reply
#43
(06-25-2012, 01:54 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: ??? Thought most here were Thomists... what gives? (more on that)

I could start with Pope #265 or I could start with Pope #100 or I could start with Pope #1, and they'll all be saying the same thing. YOUR position is to automatically come out fighting against the Pope, who, in reality isn't saying anything different from the Popes #1-264. Because of the continuity of the Faith, and that this position is from the beginning of the Church, and even St. Paul writes about it: I'm definitely on the right track and going at it fine.


Sorry jonbhorton but no matter how it gets twisted, the last quote in the OP is unlike all the other quotes, it is only too obvious that he most definitely is teaching something different than the universal teaching of all the previous popes - that's why the title of this thread says what it says.

Reply
#44
St. Thomas is very clear as is all the information.

You have no position.

You are wrong.

It's not Pope Benedict's fault you can't read correctly.
Reply
#45
Stubborn, since it could mean either, if the Church definitively interprets the text as I have would that essentially erase the contradiction between it and the decrees of previous popes? Or would there be other issues that need to be resolved? (at least with regards to that specific document)
Reply
#46
jonbhorton Wrote:There is no salvation outside the Church, this is true. But that physical building we see is no more the Church than the finiteness of Christ's physical, human body, was all of God. But the Church is the best way to get to God, through Christ Our Lord, Who, as God, has destined that there be the Way, the Truth and the Life understood by all hearts, and sought- though not always able to be perfectly known.

And in this seeking, many who were not Catholics shall find themselves purged of their sin's stain in Purgatory and in perfection shall be saved having been justified by works and faith, whose font is the grace of God. God, recompensed for that thing given, gives back.

But can a "non-Catholic" go to heaven? Bet that butt they can.

Sorry, Jon, but you are incorrect. A non-Catholic, a non-member of the Roman Catholic Church, cannot attain salvation. I am not a Feeneyite, just for your information.
Reply
#47
Well lovely that you've stated it, now back it up.

And before you do, I will first admit that you might be drawing a distinction on the visible Church and those who, through other instruments, are part of the Church though unknown to us vs those who are not visible and not part. Is this the case?

If so, this is my position as it is the Church's position.

But if you mean to say one has to be a practicing Roman Catholic, then no, you're wrong. That is just the preferred and best method, and there are degrees of culpability to it, as St. Thomas Aquinas explains very well, and as Romans 2 explains, as we have to correlate the expectations of the Jews insofaras the Law, Greeks (Gentiles), natural law, given law, established law, and knowledge thereof.

It doesn't reduce the Church or place the RC Faith into a mere "degree", but rather the Church IS, and all other things are a degree of that perfection by which men attain salvation through Christ, which, acting as instruments, though not the means, lead them by a heavenly melody to heaven. For this melody and means was ingrained in the hearts of all men lest mere humans have the ability and means to screw up God's organized, preferred method. And we have that ability, in droves. But that is the beauty of the Church. We could raze the buildings to the ground and the Church would still be. The gates of hell shall not prevail, no matter how hard we (ignorantly) try, nor satan tries on purpose.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains it clearly. Read the Summa on Faith, as I linked above. But it is not faith alone which saves, whether in or out of the visible Church, nor the system itself per se. All saved are saved through Christ, having been given the grace of established or natural law, which even Saint Paul says becomes a law unto itself- imperfect, but, salvific in its ability to lead to God (as also Saint Thomas Aquinas says, the Bible, and all the Popes!)

I'm sorry you guys aren't seeing this. It's very important.

*Edited to clarify*
Reply
#48
(06-25-2012, 02:37 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: Stubborn, since it could mean either, if the Church definitively interprets the text as I have would that essentially erase the contradiction between it and the decrees of previous popes? Or would there be other issues that need to be resolved? (at least with regards to that specific document)

The specific document, because of it's double - or even multiple meanings, renders the dogma of there not being any salvation whatsoever outside the Catholic Church into a meaningless formula.

Since it disagrees with the defined dogma, may as well throw it into the modernist trash heap along with all the other NO teachings which are adulterated to the balancing point of being heretical.

You have the correct interpretation because you start with the dogma and end with the dogma - in so doing, you maintain the meaning of the dogma, you maintain the truth. That's where it begins and ends - the only way to resolve the differences is to remove that which is not the whole truth - iow toss the other quote down the sewer.

Reply
#49
HERESY!

!
(06-25-2012, 03:18 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-25-2012, 02:37 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: Stubborn, since it could mean either, if the Church definitively interprets the text as I have would that essentially erase the contradiction between it and the decrees of previous popes? Or would there be other issues that need to be resolved? (at least with regards to that specific document)

The specific document, because of it's double - or even multiple meanings, renders the dogma of there not being any salvation whatsoever outside the Catholic Church into a meaningless formula.

Since it disagrees with the defined dogma, may as well throw it into the modernist trash heap along with all the other NO teachings which are adulterated to the balancing point of being heretical.

You have the correct interpretation because you start with the dogma and end with the dogma - in so doing, you maintain the meaning of the dogma, you maintain the truth. That's where it begins and ends - the only way to resolve the differences is to remove that which is not the whole truth - iow toss the other quote down the sewer.
Reply
#50
DO TELL!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)