Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: RobbyS

RE: And as far as the language is concerned, even Trent made it clear that what was condemned was not persons but doctrine.

Then the above sounds strange. How does the “anyone” in the “if anyone” clause apply to doctrine and not persons?

The pronoun — ANYONE cannot apply to an “it”.

Which goes back to the question -— Is non-recognition of the Pope as Primate of the Church a doctrine?

Is Sola Scriptura a doctrine?

I believe the answer would be “yes”.

If so, how can Trent simply condemn a doctrine and not condemn the person who consciously and openly, after having understood it, still holds it like many Protestants do?

In other words, one can hold false doctrine and still be “United with Christ” then, according to Vatican II.

RE: Invinsible Ignorance

I would not consider Lutherans or Calivinists to belong to this category. The Catholic Church is present almost eeverywhere they are present. Tradition, Scripture, Priests, the Pope are all there for them to hear. They are most definitely NOT invinsibly ignorant.

In fact, I would not use the word “ignorant” to describe them. Many can articulate the Roman Catholic faith just as well as an Catholic or Priest. So, this type of ignorance does not apply to them.

Yet, they are “United with Christ” even when they hold to doctrines Trent condemns?

RE: good people can hold to false doctrines.

The question then is how false a doctrine can one hold before one is considered NOT “United with Christ”?

If a good Muslim believe that Jesus is a prophet but refuse to believe that He is the son of God, he holds false doctrine. Does being “United with Christ” apply to him?

If a good follower of the Dalai Lama believes that Jesus is a great teacher (The Dalai Lama in fact calls Him “The Son of God”) but does not worship Him as the Roman Catholics do, does being “United with Christ” apply to him?

In other words, how does one hold false doctrine ( NOT out of invinsible ignorance ) and still be “United with Christ”?

53 posted on 03/26/2013 5:39:06 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

A doctrine is true or false. The only time a person is held to account for a false statement is if it leads him to do something wrong. The pronouncements of the Council were that sola Scripture, at least as it was understood by the council, was false. The rejection of papal authority is less a doctrine than a refusal to be bound by papal authority. It is schism. As to condemnation of individuals, Trent did not acts as a Court as did the Council which condemned John Hus. As to being with Christ, it does depend on what false doctrine one is talking about. Any one who denied —as a Muslim does—that Jesus died for our sins on the cross—is obviously not close to Christ. He has closed this avenue to grace. But the question is how sinful is he?By denying Jesus as savior, has he closed to door to heaven? We can say all the right things about Jesus and be trapped in our sins. We can be oblivious to our sins. We can, on the other hand, go so far as to deny the existence of God and yet be close to him.

54 posted on 03/26/2013 5:08:04 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson