Posted on 02/04/2006 4:55:13 AM PST by bornacatholic
"was condemned by the catholic church?, .... I am not catholic nor do I wish to be."
Was condemned by the only Church there was at that time, well aside from various sects of heretics like some Arians and Nestorians.
I hate to break this to you, but the ancient city of Rome did not include the side of the Tiber where the Vatican is located.
I have a question...repespectfully asked I want to add:
How is it possible that all oral traditions throughout time were consistently delivered as they were passed over many geographic areas and thru multiple different sources?
I am not contending that the Apostles themselves were ever inconsistent, but rather that there certainly could have been differences going on all over the place after the Apostles formed the local churches across the nations. It seems that is why the epistles of Paul/Peter/John were written so that oral traditions that were being abused or misconstrued would have a definitive document to refer to...
I am not naive enough to say that tradition does not have some value, but it certainly seems that sacred scripture holds a very special place in the doctrine formulations of the church, after all, the true Gospel, which is the message of salvation is present in the written word...also, the epistles of Paul/Peter/John were in commission and circulation during the formation of the early church even though they were not yet combined into the canon of the Bible until later...The teachings contained in those writings clearly would have been spread throughout the churches and thus any oral tradition had to be consistent with the writings of the Apostles such as Paul, Peter and John...
Anyway, not looking to get into any big debate, just wanted to post a perspective...
It is awesome to see so many people proclaim their devotion to Christ by "not being ashamed of the Gospel"...God's Blessings to all
They cannot do that...... as they then become too easily tripped up. (Speaking here of the "tradition sect".)
Like Fr. Echert from the EWTN expert forum?
and
You dissolve our Lord into two persons by saying that the Virgin is not the Mother of the Son of God, but only of the form of a servant which he assumed: Mary in fact was not the mother of God but was blessed by him to be the mother of the physical form that he assumed when he came to earth. But Scripture teaches that our Lord is one person with two natures, divine and human. So the Blessed Virgin is truly Theotokos -Mother of God the Word according to his humanity, because our Lord had his second birth from her (his first birth being eternal and from his Father as Son of God - but the second in time and from the Virgin as Son of Man).
Read St. Leo the Great's tome sent to the Council of Chalcedon and St. Cyril's third synodical letter to Nestorius.
She once again was not the mother of God, that concept denotes that she existed before God, and ushered Him into existence.
Please, worry about your own heterodoxy, not whatever silly ideas you can dream up.
"And since the holy Virgin brought forth corporally God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh. For 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God,' and he is the Maker of the ages, coeternal with the Father, and Creator of all; but, as we have already said, since he united to himself hypostatically human nature from her womb, also he subjected himself to birth as man, not as needing necessarily in his own nature birth in time and in these last times of the world, but in order that he might bless the beginning of our existence, and that that which sent the earthly bodies of our whole race to death, might lose its power for the future by his being born of a woman in the flesh." (St. Cyril of Alexandria, third synodical letter to Nestorius)
As we sing to the Virgin: tu quae genuisti, natura mirante, tuum sanctum Genitorem-"You who, while nature marveled, bore your holy Creator."
We would agree. See St. Thomas Becket, for example.
The Bishops have this power in virtue of their office, and hold their office by virtue of their union with St. Peter's See.
Perhaps I was a uniquely tortured Protestant soul in my 10 years of youthful wrestling with the question of why I was not a Catholic. That is always possible.
But after talking to other Protestants, I think not.
Its near impossible to be conscious of the Christian faith and not question why one is not a Catholic, and what particular Catholic doctrines one disbelieves, especially in a land like the US where there are Catholics everywhere, the Pope and Bishops are constantly in the news, etc. Its not like the Catholic Faith is hidden away from everyone in America and Europe as some obscure underground sect like in China.
The other problem in this whole line of thought about the salvific wonders of Protestantism is the casual acceptance by most Protestants of crimes against the natural law(contraception, divorce and remarriage, fornication, pornography, abortion, heterosexual sodomy, homosexuality, harpy-feminism, test-tube babies, non-obligation of regular worship of God, mistreatment of parents in their dottage, etc.).
The natural law is not a matter of ignorance vincible or invincible, since it is written upon everyone's heart.
To discover sanctity as a non-Catholic, normally one must first come to an acceptance of the natural law, and then God will begin to reveal Himself to the struggling sinner of docile mind and good will, certainly using the means at hand of the mistaken worship of Protestantism.
The Kepers Of Odd Knowledge Society might have that as a view. But, even nominal Catholics don't
THE ATTITUDE OF THE CATHOLIC INTELLECT
1. In the first place, wo see how truly humble is the attitude of the Catholic intellect. A man of real humility acknowledges the weakness, imperfection, ignorance, and darkness of his understanding. He finds it easy and natural to submit his intellect to the teaching of Almighty God. He would consider himself a fool beyond measure if he, a poor, blind creature, were to limit the truths of religion to those only which his own judgment approved or comprehended. A Catholic soul, then, is a humble soul; he prostrates himself adoringly before his God, and cries out: "O my God, I believe with all my heart whatever Thou teachest me."
In the eyes of the world, no doubt, it is absurd to believe what you cannot understand, but not so in the eyes of God. " Unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." A Catholic possesses this childlike faith. A child does not criticize, or dispute, or call in question, or demand to know the reasons for everything that he is taught; he accepts it without suspicion an the authority of his teachers or his parents : for to the young mind these are virtually infallible. To us Almighty God is absolutely infallible; Him, then, we believe with the simplicity of little children. In so doing we are not afraid of being thought infantile, weak, slavish, unmanly. People who apply these epithets to us, as they do, neither know the nature of true faith nor possess it; and they are but pronouncing their own condemnation, according to the Scriptural standard. With our unhesitating, unquestioning, loving, adoring faith, like that of innocent children, we as Catholics are happy; and we know that it is immensely pleasing to God.
2. And how do we know this? Because it honours and glorifies Him so much; it is the noblest testimony our intellect can pay to Him; it is the proof of our limitless faith in His veracity. To give an instantaneous "Credo," even when He announces the most stupendous and impenetrable mysteries, surely argues sublime trust in Him. " If some Person," says Father St. Jure, S.J., in his beautiful "Treatise an the Knowledge and Love of Our Lord Jesus Christ" (vol. ii., chap. xx.), "asked me to believe for his sake that the sun is luminous, I do not think he would be greatly indebted to me for believing it, since my eyes deprive me of the power of doubting it; but if he wished me to believe that it is not luminous, I should testify great affection for him if, an his word, I admitted as true what my reason and will prove to be false; and I should give him the most signal tokens of the entire reliance I placed an his opinion, his judgment, the perfection of his sight. We therefore testify great love for God by believing simply, like children, all the mysteries of faith in which our reason is lost, and which our eyes not only see not, but often seem to See the contrary. Thus St. Paul says: “Charity believeth all things.' "
We know, too, from Our Lord Himself how pleasing to Him is this simple faith. You remember the touching incident an the apparition of the Risen Saviour to St. Thomas, one of the Twelve (St. John xx. 24 -29). Thomas was not present when Our Lord appeared to the Apostles the firnt Easter night ; and when told by them "We have seen the Lord," he refused to believe it, and declared: "Unless I shall see and handle Him, I will not believe." Hence he is called "the doubting Thomas." To satisfy him Our Lord graciously condescended to appear before him the following Sunday, and invited him, saying: "Put in thy finger hither and see my hands, and bring hither thy hand and put it into my side; and be not faithless but believing." On this St. Thomas believed, saying: " My Lord and my God!" "Jesus saith to him, Because thou hast seen Me, Thomas, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." In this sentence Our Lord pronounced a Divine eulogy an an act of faith. To believe without seeing, without proving -this is what pleases Him. For believing in his Lord's Resurrection after seeing Him risen, Thomas was deserving of no praise and no benediction, for he could not help believing then. To have credited it before proving it with his own eyes; to have assented to the word of his fellow Apostles; in short, to have taken it an faith - this would have won him praise and blessing. But he missed the blessing because, before believing, he insisted an having proof and demonstration. "Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed."
3. And not only is there no blessing and praise, but there is no merit, no credit, no reward for believing a thing after you have proved and tested and tried it. There is no merit, e.g., in believing in the ebb and flow of the tide, or in the law of gravitation, or in the existence of flying machines, because we can prove the truth of these things any day for ourselves; wo know they are facts from the evidence of our Benses. In the same way the angels and saints in Heaven are deserving of no reward and no merit for believing all the truths revealed by God, because they see God face to face, and all truth in Him; they know it, as theologians say, intuitively; they are constrained to believe, as they are constrained to love. The Beatific Vision is itself their reward. There is no room for faith in Heaven: faith is changed to sight. But to believe the dogmas of religion which are not susceptible of being tested by the senses, and whose mysteries wo cannot fathom; to believe unhesitatingly in the reality of persons and places and things we never saw and cannot prove by natural reason or evidence-this is something altogether different, something wonderful and sublime. It is worthy of all reward, because it is so contrary to our natural inclinations, and because it brings into play so much higher and nobler an act of man's intelligence. To believe, for example, with your whole heart and soul, in spite of all appearances to the contrary, that the Sacred Host is your Creator and your God under the species of bread, and that in Communion you receive God's Precious Body and Soul into your own body and soul; to believe that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without that guilt and stain of Bin which has rested an every other human being that ever lived; to believe in the existence of souls in Purgatory. and that indulgences can be applied by the living to assist them-I say to believe all this, and muck else in the Catholic Faith, needs faith-intense, profound, stupendous faith, in short, Divine faith-and nothing less. It is not an ordinary act of the intellect, it is extraordinary-indeed, supernatural-and only a Catholic is capable of it. He accepts these truths of Revelation because God has taught them to him, and for this reason only; and for that God will reward him. He is not compelled to believe them against his will, as he is compelled to believe mathematical truths. Twice two are four; the whole is greater than the part; you have no choice there; you must believe that : it is what we call a " geometrical necessity." But the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, the Real Presence- a man is free to reject them and take the consequences. Thousands and millions, as a matter of fact, have rejected them. In doing so they sin, more or less; in accepting them, you merit a reward exceeding great. “Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.
"... and hold their office by virtue of their union with St. Peter's See."
How does this work out with Orthodox bishops and Patriarchs from a Latin pov?
This is a false dichotomy. This priest has the authority, as a priest to teach the faith, and he is reiterating magisterial teaching, unlike a lay person such as yourself, with no authority who is making it up as he goes along.
"Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, but describes itself as a pastoral council; as such, it did not intend to teaching anything new, definitively, nor did it. So it would be wrong to suggest that Vatican II has somehow changed that which has been dogmatically declared in the past--no council or pope could do that, even if it intended such.Popes, councils, theologians and the laity can speculate about such matters as invincible ignorance and a hidden manner in which God may work with judging individuals, but we remain bound to the teaching that there is no salvation except through Christ and no salvation outside the Church. I reject the false interpretation and misreading of the Latin text as, "without" rather than "outside of."
I invite anyone who can produce a dogmatic declaration of the Church that teaches that salvation is possible without Christ or outside of the Church to do so. You will not find it, folks!" - Father Echert
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.