Skip to comments.Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation??
Posted on 01/02/2002 1:15:38 PM PST by Theresa
click here to read article
When their conscience makes them fly airplanes into tall buildings, what do you think happens to them?
From what teaching of Jesus do you derive a canon or need for canonical sanction? Or do you assume a church is not a church unless it has official literature which can no longer be changed or questioned because it has canonicity?
Personally, I am fascinated by the lack of understanding evidenced by many stalwart Christians of Biblical origins. The largest majority in a recent poll on MSNBC believe the Bible to be inerrant. IMHO a strange conclusion for such an educated culture. Contradictions cannot be rationalized into inerrancy without an unwillingness to think critically.
This is the doctrine of my faith - it is arrogant to think otherwise.
I realize that - however doctrinal issues exist just like Calvinism, & Arminianism. To deny that is to open your eyes within your bowels.
Very clever. Do you have an example? Since they "exist" I thought you might?
How does celebrating Mass in Latin de-rich the poor? For that matter how does a Baptist service in English enrich the poor?
Christ took Salvation from the Synagogue and gave it to the poor. A Latin Mass will be only understood by those intelligent enough to comprehend latin, something you wont find among the demographics of todays inner city. Is it trying to reach people and spread the Word or is it merely spooning Christ out in a controlled manner to those so educated?
As I said, the primary, if not sole purpose of a Mass is to worship God. I also said that the Bible readings and sermon would be in the vernacular. So what part of "reaching people" and "spreading the Word" would be missing?
As for not understanding the ordinary parts of the Mass in Latin, there are, as I already said, Missals with English translations. So that isn't an excuse either. You haven't addressed what I said at all, just listed your prejudice again.
As for Baptist /English services, it takes the predominant language of the region and makes it accessible to anyone who comes in the door, not just the pew filler Sunday Christian / Holiday types.
As would a Catholic Mass in Latin with Missals and the readings and sermon in the vernacular. Shall we tailor everything we do to the ignorant folks who may stumble across the doorway? Or should we honor God the best way we know how and provide teaching to elevate even an inner city youth to know how to say "Et cum spiritu tuo" and know what it means? Must everything be remedial?
So, it is the chance of heretical teaching that bothers you? You do realize that priests do not ad lib during the Mass?
Oh please child - Ive got the whole liturgical thing down - & yes Ive heard plenty of ad-libs (Cath and Pro)
LOL. You got me there. I should have said priests are not supposed to ad lib during Mass. You will find little of this in the Latin Mass, as few can ad lib in Latin.
Do you also realize that the Mass is an offering to God, a time to worship? Those attending Mass are there to worship God, not necessarily to sit and listen to a preacher.
Im glad the worship works for you. Personally though, the liturgical constancy is boring, predictable and Spirit lacking. You are entitled though.
Liturgical constancy and even the use of a special language serves to make the liturgy different from the other activities we partake in. It is a special time and place to spend with God in worship to Him. That it is different from a normal assembly of human beings is good. That it follows a pattern is a symbol of the constancy of God.
What is it that makes you believe that my singing "O come let us adore Him" is good but singing "Venite Adoremus" is bad?
Ive got no problem with singing in Latin.
The entire Mass is designed to be sung! So what do you make of that?
Infallible = Jesus/God/Holy Spirit
Contrast that with "impeccible."
Impeccible = Pope John Paul, Billy Graham
Neither of those are definitions, rather they are examples. And neither the Pope nor Billy Graham are impeccible. Try dictionary.com.
We do not teach that Popes are without sin. This is a common misconception and I would think you would know better.
Ya huh - certainly wasnt that way in our Diocese 30 years ago.
I can assure you that no Diocese taught that the Pope was without sin.
I asked you to define "co-redeemer." You have failed. Shall I rail about some teaching of yours without even having the faintest idea of how to define it? Wouldn't that make me ignorant?
co-redeemer = someone elevated to the level of Christ - spare me your slavish need for these simple definitions.
My "slavish need" to have you define your terms reveals that you don't know what you are talking about. The furthest stretch of the Catholic imagination of Mary as "Co-Redeemer" does not elevate her to the level of Christ. It is called "ignorance" when you talk about things you don't understand and it is called a "strawman" to attack ideas of your opponent which he does not hold.
Do I do that to your faith?
There isn't a "book" in the Bible, NT or OT, which, says, "OK, folks, here's the list of the official books!" The index is added later, of course.
Funniest conversation I ever had with a fundamentalist ended up with him saying everything in the Bible was to be taken literally EXCEPT when Jesus says, "This is my body" at the Last Supper. "That's just symbolic," he said. Along with the eating and drinking part, etc. Contrary to some posters here and elsewhere, I don't think that a person has to understand every word of the ancient Hebrew and Greek scriptures to be a valid Christian. That's an impossibility anyway. Most interesting book on sacred scripture I have seen is Henri de Lubac's book on Medieval Exegesis.
As for the earlier nonsensically absurd bugaboo about "theology" being banned by the Bible or something, there are some who seem not to have a clue and apparently refuse to read the ABCs of Christian history. All that really means (Grk:theos, God, logos, study) is "the study of" God, religion, sacred texts, religious teachings, etc. Any scholarly or intellectual discussion about the meaning of divine revelation and the drama of salvation - which, of course, is what everyone has been doing (more or less, less in some cases) on this thread. There is a wide and broad tent for critical and theoretical discussions of religion and affairs of the spirit within the Christian community.
You Sir are blessed with a conservative diocese
Rochester is not so fortunate
Look - can we agree to disagree - I still see it as a solid faith -its just not for me. I see faults in yours, you see faults in mine. Im tired, my hands hurt and its been a long day - I'll meet you in the sandbox tomorrow, my daughter orientation at Catholic school is tonight.
I spend no time and effort doing so. I do spend some time and effort searching for the truth, however.
Of your last 50 posts, more than 40 of them have been attacking Christians.
Utter nonsense. Prove it if you are going to make a serious charge like that. Unless you consider me posting many examples of Roman Catholic dogma as "attacking Christians". If you are RC this should please you, not bother you. Your personal questions about me do tell me some things about you though. 1)You have too much time on your hands that would be better used. 2) Your faith seems to be very weak if you consider my question as an attack upon Christians. Read Luke 6:46-49 and consider if your faith is in the real "rock" (Jesus). When the tests of your faith come, He will never let you down.
What is your relationship with "sirgawain"?
Never heard of him/her. Why did he/she ask tough questions that you can't answer too?
Are you entered here under two names,
Just this one.
or are you just one of the members of the "Hit Squad"?
Quick take off your tinfoil hat and look outside to make sure the black helicopters are not there.
Thanks that explains a lot. BTW do I need to apologize for the thrashing the the U of I Hawkeye basketball team laid on Pretty Boy's team on your homecourt? Maybe that's what's got you so sore at me.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
Christianity arose within Judaism. The earliest Christians, were Jews, so their hopes and expectations of a Messiah foretold in Jewish Scriptures (the Old Testament) were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. These Christians already understood what 'scripture' was, and how to use it in the context of teaching and worship from their Jewish roots. Consequently, the formation of 'scripture' to be used for teaching and worship of the Christian faith was a logical requirement. The review of Christian writings to determine what was 'scripture'; that is valid, authoritative and holy led to the development of the New Testament and can be seen in three major stages: 1) the rise of Christian literature to the status of scripture, 2) the conscious grouping of various writings into collections, and 3) the revision and approval of these collections as a 'New Testament' - this being called a 'canon'. Canon comes from the Greek word 'kanon' meaning measuring rule. Only certain books passed the measuring rules required for 'canonization'.