Posted on 05/12/2008 8:08:07 PM PDT by annalex
It most certainly is, by all definitions! It is one of the denominations of Christianity, period - regardless of your thinking.
What you quoted:
Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
What Paul REALLY said:
(as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
You are wrong.
That depends on the level of understanding they had informing that rejection.
... if so, does the RCC make that teaching as clear as can be in your opinion?
Yes.
But that doesn't mean anti-Catholics can't muddy the waters by making false accusations about what Catholics believe and practice.
If you reject the Catholic Church you reject Christ, so no, you cannot be saved in that frame of mind. But of course, you can be converted to Christ and His Church as late as in the moment of your death, or else you may only know Christ through the means and graces available to you, which are not Catholic, yet never reject His Church actively.
It is not as simple as saying that non-Catholics cannot be saved. It is a complex teaching that is easy to misunderstand. Yes, that and every other teaching of the Church should be taught with brutal clarity and it not always is.
In the sense in which it was proclaimed originally, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus holds. But there is hope for non-Catholics and even for non-Christians, of conversion.
True, but it helps.
On another subject, How Catholicism Is Different - THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ISN'T JUST ANOTHER "DENOMINATION"
Do you think Christ and Christ’s body i.e. the Church are distinct entitities?
Ask Jesus to be your Savior...He'll give you the 'decoder ring' too...
Do you realize therefore that if someone is aware of the concept of the Assumption of Mary and doubts its truth, that person is not a Christian according to the RCC (Munificentissimus Deus)?
Been there. Done that.
Doesn't work
...as the multiplicity of Protestant denominations amply proves.
First, I agree that Jesus conquered death, and did that by the resurrection of his body from the dead. As a matter of fact, that is the GOSPEL message! I could write pages explaining the Gospel, but the writers of the Epistles did a much better job on that, yet people don't accept all that they taught. I have no disagrement on those things you said above.
It's the "or what" where I disagree. Let's start with the first thing I came to in my studies: the term "soul" as is used by Athanagoras, Origen, Tertullian, and Augustine who systemized it into church doctrine. Most of the church fathers before and during the time of the four individuals I named herein did not hold to the meaning of "soul" as those individuals did. All four of the above named people were philosphers who accepted the pagan belief of the "soul" as being an "immortal" entity within the body of man. When the man died, the "soul" was released and was spoken of as being "more alive than ever," a phrase heard at many funeral service about the deceased. One likes to think of these four individuals as being exceptionally intelligent, however, they were absolutely ignorant when it came to applying the scriptures to their teachings on this topic of an "immortal soul." They turned to Plato's idea of an immortal soul instead of what God in the OT said, Jesus in the four Gospel records, and the Apostles in the Epistles.
This is where I belive the churches of the second and third centuries started falling away from the truth. By the time of Augustine (late fourth to early fifth century), most of the churches had adopted Plato's theory of an immortal soul entity residing in man. It would benefit you greatly if you read Augustines "City of God," book 21. You will see that his argument for an immortal soul is strickly philosophical and almost direct from Plato. He does not try to use any scriptures to support it. And when he does use scripture to get a point across, he changes the definition of the terms used. Ex: death, when scripture says that "the wages of sin is death," or "the soul that sins shall die," he says that in regard to the "soul" that death is not death, but merely a "separation from God;" yet, when talking about the body, death means the total destruction of it, making it extinct. This, IMHO, is where the church falls away from the truth God revealed. Tradition is worthless on this topic.
I have read Augustines "City of God," and many of his other writings. And I agree with Edward Fudge when he says: "...it is a mark of Augustine's true greatness that in other places he urges us always to test what he says by the Word of God (scriptures) and to choose the teachings of scripture over anything he might say or write." Here is one of his statements, found in the preface of his "Treatise on the Trinity": "Do not follow my writings as holy scripture. When you find in holy scripture anything you did not believe before, believe it without doubt; but in my writings, you should hold nothing for certain." I take his advice very seriously, indeed! And I test everything he says against the scriptures! So should you.
Another thing that may benefit you is to visit the Web site kenfortier.com and read some of the articles he has available on many topics of scripture. His 35-40 years in his study of the scriptures has resulted in a very excellent harmonization of God's word. He even has a page dedicated to an exceptional man of God who wrote a monthly article for the last 40 plus years on the Gospel message - only 50 or so are posted, but he said he'd post more as he formats them for posting. The book Ken wrote on "Church Doctines: Right or Wrong? (You Decide)" is a powerful look at the topics he writes on - the soul and immortality, death, life, infant baptism, believer's baptism, resurrection and final judgment is, IMHO, great exegesis.
That's just one instance where I think the RCC has gone haywire in its teaching. And there are many other things also, many of them actually inconsequential to salvation. Hope this helps you to see where I'm coming from. BTW, my leaving the Catholic denomination was not influenced one bit by any of the other denominations of Christendom; just thought I'd let you know before anyone starts hurling accusations that I follow any man-made religion.
It is very sad that you left the Church that Christ founded for modern charlatans. You should come back.
Yes, it was very hard on me to admit I was following some false teachings that undermined the Gospel of Jesus. The Catholic church would have to really change some important teaching before I would ever entertain thoughts of re-joining it.
I'm not aware of ANY Catholic teaching that uses "aware of the concept" as a basis for conviction.
Could you be more specific with your citation?
That's your opinion. But how about looking up the definition of "denominations" and then tell me I'm wrong!
Only by ignoring the meaning of the word "denomination."
Yep, I realize that as I was once a member. But I now ignore it as just partisan egoism.
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
The mother of the male child of Rev 12 who himself was caught up to the throne of God is a woman who was taken to the wilderness for a “time, times, and half a time” to escape the onslaught of Satan. She has “other” children who hold to the testimony of Jesus.
In order to understand the passage, it is biblically necessary to fit the many symbolisms of that passage to their contexts in the book of Daniel.
It is an absolute necessity to consider the entire passage and its connections.
“Mary” never appears in it. Her “assumption” never appears in it.
Yes. When I used "aware of the concept", I was responding to when you previously said, "That depends on the level of understanding they had informing that rejection."; I was pointing out that anyone who is aware of the "Assumption of Mary" concept and doubts its validity is not a true Christian, according to the RCC via Munificentissimus Deus and by your 'level of understanding' criteria; there simply is no way around that.
Assuming you'd agree with me that people were actually saved before the Assumption of Mary became official RCC doctrine (and maybe before The Church began even), would you like to take a stab at explaining why believing in the Assumption of Mary would become a necessary part of Salvation only so many hundreds of years after the actual event was supposedly acknowledged by many early Believers through apostolic tradition, yet was of no significance to them while they defined what it took to be Saved? Why do you think the Holy Spirit didn't convict those early Believers of the extreme importance of the Assumption of Mary back at the beginning of the Church, if it were indeed so necessary for Salvation?
Which scenario do you honestly believe to be more plausible: 1) God didn't care at first, but slowly realized over time that true Believers actually did need to believe in the Assumption of Mary as proof that they were properly convicted by the Holy Spirit; or 2) the RCC didn't receive that teaching from the Holy Spirit, but instead pulled that requirement for Salvation out of the ether to further its worship of Mary, Queen of Heaven?
If scenario 2 is true, that would mean that the RCC is just the Jesus and Mary cult, and not the true Church of Christ, correct? It would then stand to reason that instead of being a necessary part of the Salvation process, the RCC would be a hindrance to it, wouldn't it? If scenario 2 isn't true, could you dispassionately explain why/how scenario 1 would be more plausible because admittedly, it looks to me that the RCC is an exclusive club started by arrogant control freaks who liked to exert power over others by claiming to have God's Stamp of Approval™ on their dogma i.e. the RCC is just your typical cult.
And I very clearly asked you for a more specific citation.
Is there a problem with that?
Bodily resurrected, yes, but those who have fallen asleep in Him are currently alive in Heaven!
the "church" is the "assembly of called out ones," the members: and they can and do "err." Even Popes "err." History is the evidence here. Your explanation that since the church is the body of Christ, and Christ is the truth, it will never "err," is a straw man waiting to be knocked down :-)
I don't claim that men cannot err or be sinners or fail in their attempts to imitate Christ. But, the Church was built on the Rock, and both the Keys and the Holy Spirit were given to it and, as an authority, is protected from declaring false dogma. I'm going to guess you try and claim that the "rock" of the Church is really St. Peter's declaration, not him - am I right?
I misunderstood what you meant by wanting a more specific citation. You seem to be short with me; am I right?
Do you mean you'd like me to post what Munificentissimus Deus states? Sure, no problem. It says, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
The RCC clearly states here that God, through the RCC, demands acceptance of the Assumption of Mary on the word of the RCC alone. If you dare doubt the AoM, you are rejecting God. Not a lot of wiggle room for supposed Christians who refuse to believe in the Assumption of Mary, is there?
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.