Posted on 07/13/2008 7:57:59 AM PDT by Ottofire
As for your question, considering the attitude towards people teaching a 'different' gospel than that which was delivered once for all ... I'd say them folks are out of grace and in need of repentance big time.
That actually wasn't the question. The question was asking folks how they would resolve the apparent change in attitude from extra ecclesium nulla salus to the attitude currently expressed in the Catechism, as stated by the Msgr in the video.
As to your response, though, I agree that if somebody receives another gospel than that which was delivered to the apostles, they need to consider their actions, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. That would apply whether the "apostle" is Marcion, Arius, Nestorius, or somebody more modern.
I would suggest that there are issues that have rendered the question as one relating to a moving target: the strong traditionalism of the Roman church being an issue on several different levels.
Actually, I see the Magesterium (the teaching authority of the Church) as being an anchor. A set of lines that keeps us within orthodoxy. Lose the Magesterium and you end up with a whole host of diverse and contradictory ideas: all of which claim to be Inspired Truth.
I mentioned Marcion earlier. He had some interesting ideas about God. Thought that there were two separate Gods (a Creator God and a Redeemer God). To support his ideas, he emasculated the Scriptures: he rejected all old Testament ideas, all of the so-called "Catholic" epistles (from John, Jude, Peter), and all of the Gospels, other than the Gospel of Luke. Of course, there was no set Canon of Scripture yet, so it was considerably easier for him to do so. Was he wrong? There were thousands in his day (and for a few hundred years thereafter) who did NOT think so. There are a few, to this day, who think he was right. But orthodox Christianity, as determined by the Church Fathers, based upon the teachings of the apostles (remember, Marcion lived in the early 2nd Century...the Canon of Scripture was not formally set until the 4th Century). In other words, his heresy was decided based upon Tradition (big "T" Tradition).
Another good, historical example, I mentioned earlier: Arius. Arius believed that Jesus was God's highest creation, but that he was a creation -- not God. Arius got a high percentage of Christianity to follow his teachings. In order to determine whether he was right or not, Constantine had to work with +Sylvester to convene an ecumenical council (the first since the apostles convened, as documented in the Acts). Again, the council made its decision based upon Tradition (as both sides of the argument claimed Scripture could back up their arguments). But if you look, today, the Jehovah's Witnesses would pretty closely line up to the Arian view of the Godhead. On the other hand, there is the view of the Oneness movement (as in Oneness Pentacostals).
Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments.
- Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found.
- Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled.
- Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will.
- Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice.
“) and this Copyright/Reproduction Limitations notice.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0254.htm
It’s not that simple alex, it was for discussion purposes only but as it appears I got the question wrong in the first place, it’s now obsolete.
“Actually, I see the Magesterium (the teaching authority of the Church) as being an anchor. A set of lines that keeps us within orthodoxy. Lose the Magesterium and you end up with a whole host of diverse and contradictory ideas: all of which claim to be Inspired Truth.”
Afree!
Agree!!
Actually, I appreciate more the ones who will come right out with it and call us all heretics, anathema, and damned, and stuff like that if we don’t submit and practice certain rites (their way, of course). It’s intellectually honest. And then we know where we stand, right?
"It all comes down to this – the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Pope as the universal monarch of the church is the defining issue. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals should together recognize the importance of that claim. We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division. The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church. This is not a theological game for children, it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question........I appreciate the Roman Catholic Church's candor on this issue, and I believe that Evangelical Christians, with equal respect and clarity, should respond in kind. This is a time to be respectfully candid – not a time to be offended."
Why am I not surprised that a Catholic hater would take it out of context and try to make it seem to say what they wanted it to say, so many non-Catholics read the Bible the same way.
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.