Which One of These is Not Like the Others?
#51
So simple a child can understand it - watch video in OP from 8.20 to 10.00 - is he a heretic too?

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...713.0.html
Reply
#52
(06-25-2012, 02:32 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: 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.

St. Thomas?  He never taught that heretical sects outside of the Church could themselves be instruments of salvation.  As INP pointed out earlier, God can call anyone from any sect or worldview to conversion, but that does not mean that the sect or worldview was the real instrument.  

Now, I suppose that it is possible for the CDF to be merely saying that there is truth present in various religions and that recognition of certain truths can help lead one to conversion, i.e. the little meat of truth surrounded by the fat of heresy in any given religion can be "instrumental" in the beginning of a conversion.  But there are two major problems with saying that in the way the CDF did.  

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.

2) The second problem is that we can replace "them" in, "In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation...", (with the "them" referring to heretics and schismatics) with literally anything and the truth still holds.

We could say, "In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using voodoo as an instrument of salvation..."

"In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using atheism as an instrument of salvation..."

"In fact the Spirit fo Christ has not refrained from using Luciferianism as an instrument of salvation..."



I will concede, then, that it is perhaps posible that the statement is not heretical when we boil down what it really means.  But, if that's the case, and I'm not saying that it is, then it is so ambiguous and scandalous that it must be said that it is intentionally vague so as to refrain from teaching outright heresy while still being able to influence the faithful to fall into heresy.  There's just no way that, even if not outright heretical, this couldn't have been written in any number of ways that are more clear and orthodox.
Reply
#53
(06-24-2012, 10:23 PM)Walty Wrote: It seems to me that what is essential to faith is essential for salvation.  If it is possible for the Orthodox to be saved as Orthodox, or for the Lutherans to be saved as Lutherans, then the doctrinal differences, the primacy of the papacy, transubstantiation, the filioque, etc. are all non-essential doctrinal differences; they are merely different approaches to theology, but are not essential to Christianity.

How can any of these be essential doctrines, since they were neither taught nor believed at one point in the history of the Church?  What is truly essential besides what is contained in the creed?
Reply
#54
(06-25-2012, 04:02 PM)Walty Wrote:
(06-25-2012, 02:32 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: 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.

St. Thomas?  He never taught that heretical sects outside of the Church could themselves be instruments of salvation.  As INP pointed out earlier, God can call anyone from any sect or worldview to conversion, but that does not mean that the sect or worldview was the real instrument.  

Now, I suppose that it is possible for the CDF to be merely saying that there is truth present in various religions and that recognition of certain truths can help lead one to conversion, i.e. the little meat of truth surrounded by the fat of heresy in any given religion can be "instrumental" in the beginning of a conversion.  But there are two major problems with saying that in the way the CDF did.  

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.

2) The second problem is that we can replace "them" in, "In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation...", (with the "them" referring to heretics and schismatics) with literally anything and the truth still holds.

We could say, "In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using voodoo as an instrument of salvation..."

"In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using atheism as an instrument of salvation..."

"In fact the Spirit fo Christ has not refrained from using Luciferianism as an instrument of salvation..."



I will concede, then, that it is perhaps posible that the statement is not heretical when we boil down what it really means.  But, if that's the case, and I'm not saying that it is, then it is so ambiguous and scandalous that it must be said that it is intentionally vague so as to refrain from teaching outright heresy while still being able to influence the faithful to fall into heresy.  There's just no way that, even if not outright heretical, this couldn't have been written in any number of ways that are more clear and orthodox.

You're not getting what I'm saying. He implies a different, nuanced version of that.

It's explained clearly by him in the Summa Theologica where I linked.

Additionally, Bishop Morrow, in his catechetical work "My Catholic Faith", explains it in the same way. The system in which they live does not act as the Church, but it does provide an instrument to salvation, which is only through Christ. He draws all his material from the Baltimore Catechism. This is originally written in the late 30's/early 40's.

http://www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/MyC...cFaith.htm

http://www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/MyC...cfc070.htm see number 6

However, the note provided re: invincible ignorance is itself ignorant of the Protestant reality, from which I sprang and grew up in. I DID NOT know the doctrine of the Church; arguing against it, I argued against that which I didn't know. Many, many Protestants are in the same boat, and ignorant of being wrong, because they have no societal basis of what being wrong even means. Trying to reach them like they're true heretics is a mistake, because they're just not. They subscribe to heresy, but don't know it. They just know a bunch of "papists" accuse them as such. They have no understanding of the authority of the Church, Her true definition, nor true doctrinal teaching. As such, the primitive island excuse fails gravely because, again, St. Thomas explains that we can exist in systems, out of obedience, though never ourselves being damned if we meet the onus to be purged. It wasn't until I had a light bulb moment that the Church was the Church that I was culpable to the Church's authority and teaching. But had I been ignorant, never knowing or understanding that I was wrong, there is still salvation. God's law doesn't change. Ever. Even with the invention of the internet. It just becomes more convoluted and hazy from the smoke of this burning world.

No clue why people can't just read. The law of the Gospel is immutable and timeless. The invention of the internet doesn't change that. It's up to us to use this new media correctly, not incorrectly. For that just increases the ignorance of the Protestant and everyone else.



As such, I stand by Bishop Morrow's original writing, which he himself did not edit, because the same principles apply. How they apply in the modern time is the real kicker. But the law of God stands. It's not like Protestants of the Bishop's day didn't have their similar access, nor did they never preach against the Church.

Traddy modernism is a real kick in the nuts for Christ, guys, just as much as Rock Band Church. Error is error, no matter how much one tries to twist the words of the Popes, Saints, or the Apostles. Not even twisting the words of Christ changes this, but in fact, brings condemnation on the twisters.

Pope Benedict ain't saying all dogs go to heaven, he's just saying that not all dogs go to Hell.

It's pretty simple.
Reply
#55
(06-25-2012, 04:10 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-24-2012, 10:23 PM)Walty Wrote: It seems to me that what is essential to faith is essential for salvation.  If it is possible for the Orthodox to be saved as Orthodox, or for the Lutherans to be saved as Lutherans, then the doctrinal differences, the primacy of the papacy, transubstantiation, the filioque, etc. are all non-essential doctrinal differences; they are merely different approaches to theology, but are not essential to Christianity.

How can any of these be essential doctrines, since they were neither taught nor believed at one point in the history of the Church?  What is truly essential besides what is contained in the creed?

The filioque is in the creed.
Reply
#56
Jonbhorton, let me ask you this.  If the post-conciliar understanding of salvation outside of the Church is the same now as it has always been, why do they never simply echo the pre-conciliar popes and say, "Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation,"?  In a modern world so infected with religious pluralism and indifferentism, it seems more important than ever that this is reiterated. 
Reply
#57
(06-25-2012, 04:30 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: Pope Benedict ain't saying all dogs go to heaven, he's just saying that not all dogs go to Hell.

It's pretty simple.


Can you imagine, after dictating that quote from the OP, Pope Benedict XVI reciting the Athanasian Creed as Fr. Rodriguez did in the video......
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;  Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly...............

Reply
#58
Though the filioque is in the creed I think Melkite was referencing the fact that it was not always in the creed. And as an Eastern Catholic he is not required to recite it in the creed either. Unless he means to deny the doctrine right out.
Reply
#59
(06-25-2012, 04:38 PM)Walty Wrote: The filioque is in the creed.

It technically isn't a part of the Nicene creed, since it wasn't part of the faith professed at Nicea or Constantinople.  The creed with the filioque would more accurately be called the Florentine, or even the Niceno-Florentine creed.

But my real point was, I've always read that the essential doctrines are belief in the triune God, the virgin incarnation of Christ, and his death and resurrection for our salvation.  Everything else is just icing on the cake, so how can they really be considered essentials of the faith?
Reply
#60
(06-25-2012, 04:41 PM)Walty Wrote: Jonbhorton, let me ask you this.  If the post-conciliar understanding of salvation outside of the Church is the same now as it has always been, why do they never simply echo the pre-conciliar popes and say, "Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation,"?  In a modern world so infected with religious pluralism and indifferentism, it seems more important than ever that this is reiterated. 

Walty,

I think a lot has to do with a desire to move away from very unequivocal theological language, because most just do not understand what is truly meant.

If you start with "There is no Salvation outside of the Church", that's TOTALLY true. BUT, it starts the witnessing process off with a bad footing if the person is unwilling to hear beyond that. It'd be like slapping them first, if you wish to explain the process of confirmation. It just doesn't work now in terms of this age of the internet. It actually enforces ignorance by a misuse of working with the reality of the culture.

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.

Stubborn- If you still disagree with this position after I've now explained it from: The Bible, St. Thomas Aquinas, The Popes, Saints, Bishop Morrow's work, and now the Baltimore Catechism, I don't really know what to say other than you need to find a well trained orthodox priest to sort you out, because it's obvious there's a disconnect with the act of reading it and having it click. This could simply be nothing more than an issue of learning style. I don't think you're stupid, just not grasping this and holding to what you believe to be true. Kinda like a Protestant or another.

But it doesn't objectively make that thing true which you hold to be true, for you espouse error. It's just that truth and mercy are able to win out over human frailty and always bests error.



Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)