Posted on 12/29/2009 11:32:54 AM PST by HarleyD
Triumph? OUTSTANDING book and so well annotated.
Gasp!!! Harley, you genius, you've exposed the Catholic Church contradicting itself............LOL!!
Question. Does the virtue of prudence never arise in the Protestant mind when it sets out to explain Catholic teaching to Catholics?? I mean does the thought never enter one's mind that perhaps, it might be me that hasn't really grasped what's being said? No, no.........of course not............unthinkable.
The scary thought is that this sort of presumption is brought to the personal interpretation of Scripture. Maybe it's actually the result of it!
Anyway, FWIW...............points 16, 17, & 18 are in fact born of Christian charity and they are based on the horrendous assumption that there is just one God, one truth and one true faith and that all else is error. Ergo, those who follow a faith other than the one true faith can not be presumed to have found salvation. What's so shocking about that? It's in fact the raison d'etre for evangelization.
Note that these points do not definitively say that a non-Catholic can not be saved. Point #17 says this:
We may entertain at least a well-founded hope for the eternal salvation of all those who are in no manner in the true Church of Christ.
I'm assuming you think that the latter phrase refers to Anglicans, Baptists etc. That would be an incorrect assumption. Vatican II says this:
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ.
Lumen Gentium, #5.
You might not appreciate this but you are, in fact, linked to the one true, Church. Furthermore, it doesn't mean that those "who are in no manner in the true Church of Christ" can't be saved for all things are possible with God but it simply says that there's no reason for us to assume it as a given or even a likely. That's completely sensible and is not meant as an insult. Usually, we prepare for a worst case scenario in case it happens and it's the same with the Church. It believes all men are to be brought to the truth and it can't say it's no big deal if they're not.
Regarding #15. It says the following:
Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he shall believe true, guided by the light of reason.
This may seem to be in contradiction with parts of the Catholic Catechism, such as;
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.".
There is no contradiction. The quotation from the Syllabus of Errors refers to the value of a free choice of religion in the sight of God and makes the point that not all choices are of equal value. IOW, falsehood and error do not hold equal favor in the sight of God and the fact that we have free will does not imply that God blesses or agrees with the way we exercise it. The quotation from the Catechism, on the other hand, means that God respects man's free will, even when he chooses badly and that civil and ecclesiastical authorities are to do the same. Man can not be compelled to accept the true faith.
I hope this helps.
I'm confused. 1) Are you saying these decrees issued by the Church are or are not infallible? 2) Is Vatican II infallible? 3) If Neither of these documents represents the infallible teaching of the Church, how do you know they are correct?
As Mary Poppins once said, "I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I never explain anything." I don't try to explain Catholic teaching to Catholics. I merely point out the inconsistencies.
Ergo, those who follow a faith other than the one true faith can not be presumed to have found salvation.
Catholics by their own doctrine admit they do not know if they are saved or will be saved. So how can they presume to have found salvation in a Church that tells them they might not be saved? (See Mary Poppins above.)
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety
That runs completely counter with #21:
If the Church is the ONLY true religion (remember these are negatives) then how can there be other linked to this religion? Protestant criteria for salvation is that you simply believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. That's basically it except for a few addedums.
The quotation from the Catechism, on the other hand, means that God respects man's free will, even when he chooses badly and that civil and ecclesiastical authorities are to do the same.
I left my comment about this on the Nancy Pelosi thread.
Yes, Triumph. A little too big to read in bed, but such a terrific book. I loved his series on EWTN, too. Wish they’d run it again.
You have to read the list like you read Screwtape Letters/ it’s a list of errors of modern thought.
Catholics by their own doctrine admit they do not know if they are saved or will be saved. So how can they presume to have found salvation in a Church that tells them they might not be saved? (See Mary Poppins above.)
lol. Perfectly logical depiction of an illogical institution.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking. In post 9, you indicated that you understood that this is a list of “errors.” Number 15, just like the rest, is the text of an error, and not what the Church actually believes or teaches. Given that “Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he shall believe true, guided by the light of reason” is listed as an error, and would be considered as such by nearly any Christian - at least as it applies to non-Christian religions - I don’t see what you would find wrong with it yourself.
What decrees? The list above are errors, things taught or spoken that are erroneous or wrong.
2) Is Vatican II infallible?
Vatican II was an ecumenical council during which no dogma or "doctrine" was promulgated. Nothing new is taught as a result. Someone with more Church knowledge than me can answer whether or not an ecumenical council is infallible. The reality is that much of what was claimed to be changed by Vat II was, in fact, not. That there were no concluding anathemas has been a bit of a thorn as nothing clear-cut came as a result other than misrepresentation to further agendas.
3) If Neither of these documents represents the infallible teaching of the Church, how do you know they are correct?
The syllabus does not change what was always taught. It just states it in a different way. Vatican II didn't change Church teaching, no matter what the progressives say, if you actually read the documents, so there is no reason to doubt the veracity.
Because those that ARE saved--whether they know it are not--are saved by and through the Catholic Church.
Let's remember the way it was in the early centuries. Heretics were never rebaptized when they reconciled with the Church, because their original Baptism was considered valid. If it was valid, it had its intended sacramental effect--which was to join that person to the One Holy Catholic Church.
Protestantism is in the exact same position. When you were baptized, you were baptized into not A church, but THE Church. You *became a Catholic* sacramentally if not organizationally.
This is how you harmonize the language of the Syllabus of Errors with Vatican II. So:
17. We may entertain at least a well-founded hope for the eternal salvation of all those who are in no manner in the true Church of Christ.
*In no manner* is the key language there. If a person really is Catholic in no manner, there really is no hope. If however, they are Catholic in some manner, there is hope--and this concept is what Vatican II sought to explore.
The Church is the only way to salvation, like a bridge is the only means of getting off an island. I may know that bridge is there, and I may know where it goes, but if I'm lazy enough never to walk over it, I ain't gettin' off that island!
Grace is the bridge from God to man. We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior and King.
Church is a group of like-minded believers, led by a teaching elder, who worship God together, and receive the Lord's Supper together, and acknowledge the gift of membership in God's family through baptism together, and preserve the Scriptural doctrines Christ and the apostles taught, all and only according to the word of God.
From the...
II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6] III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.[7] IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[8] And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[9] V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12] ...I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.[1]
So the Scriptural truth is that God's children are found in a variety of churches faithful to the word of God, and membership in God's family by grace through faith, as determined by God from before the foundation of the world and made known to us at a time of His choosing by the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit, is the true passport that gets anyone "off the island" and into heaven.
As God wills.
The title of the document is Syllabus of Errors. The Pope is rejecting every one of the errors stated in the document.
#16 is an error. Get it yet?
And inscriptural.
Perhaps "decrees" was an improper term. The fact that these are listed as "errors" indicates that they are unture. Consequently:
Someone with more Church knowledge than me can answer whether or not an ecumenical council is infallible. The reality is that much of what was claimed to be changed by Vat II was, in fact, not.
How can you make that claim? If an ecumenical council, which bears the Pope's approval, isn't infallible what is?
There’s no contradiction I can see. What specifically do you think is not harmonizing here?
Of course not. I suppose you don’t believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion as pointed out in #78 and #79 as well.
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.