Which Catholic Church

Well, it's very important to know. Protestant churches have various forms of government. Many are congressional or self-ruled. So, if for example, 1000 Baptist churches are in pulpit fellowship with one another, technically they should count as one Church.

JackRT said:

Some of both I expect.

Click to expand...

Yes. I'm tracking.

Stabat Mater said:

Yes and it's way to big of a mess for me as a layman to explain. The ramifications is enormous.
You know, personally I actually agree with you. I dont find the "nulla"- argument to be true, but once we uturn a dogmatic statement like that, it opens the door for everything else to be false aswel.

Is mary in heaven with body and soul? Yes, she sure is in heaven, but with her body? Why should we believe this?
The simple answer is because the church teaches this and the church is infallible in matters of faith and moral.

If the church claims to be infallible in its teachings and then uturn their own teachings as they see it fit, then their whole claim is utterly absurd.

You see my point?

Click to expand...

The only problem with infallibility is that it makes it so very difficult to admit when you are wrong.

JackRT said:

The only problem with infallibility is that it makes it so very difficult to admit when you are wrong.

Click to expand...

So then all of those groups that don't have infallibility find it easy to admit they are wrong and get over their divisions?

chevyontheriver said:

So then all of those groups that don't have infallibility find it easy to admit they are wrong and get over their divisions?

Click to expand...

We are dealing with human nature.

JackRT said:

We are dealing with human nature.

Click to expand...

That was kind of my point.

Markie Boy said:

So I'm basically confounded with Catholicism. The contradictions of the pre-Vatican 2 Church and today's RCC seem to fall under the law of non contradiction. They can't both be true.

We can't have a Church that teaches no salvation outside the Church, and now it does not even matter if you are Christian - Muslim, Hindu, Atheist - no problem.

And for centuries lobbying against protestants. But I heard a talk today by a priest how the Charismatic movement would save the Church - but the Charismatic movement was a transfusion from Pentecostals into the RCC, because they had the Spirit in a way the RCC didn't, so it was said or seemed.

I'm at the end of my rope. Either the pre-Vatican 2 RCC is true, or today's RCC is true, but there are just too many contradictions for them both to be right.

Anyone else see this???

Click to expand...

I think it's important to recognize that the phrase "Outside the Church there is no salvation" originated with St. Cyprian of Carthage in the 3rd century prior to any schisms in the Church. It's not unreasonable to expect that has to be reevaluated in light of validly baptized Christians who are not Catholic.

Pre-Vatican II did not interpret that statement to mean that only those who were visibly Catholic could be saved and is consistent with what the Church teaches today. Fr. Leonard Feeney, a Jesuit priest was excommunicated in 1953 for teaching that only baptized Catholics can go to heaven. The Vatican issued a document about what “no salvation outside the church” meant in his case that aligns with our current catechism and the Council of Trent.

And Canon 4 on Baptism at the Council of Trent recognized the validity of Protestant Baptisms. Put in the context of what the Church taught about Baptism in the catechism from the Council of Trent, the same benefits of Baptism are cited that we have always recognized: remission of sin, remission of all punishment due to sin, grace of regeneration, infused virtues of faith, hope and love and incorporation into Christ, and it opens the gates of heaven to us -- in other words, SAVED provided we persevere in faith and charity.

Markie Boy said:

We can't have a Church that teaches no salvation outside the Church, and now it does not even matter if you are Christian - Muslim, Hindu, Atheist - no problem.

Click to expand...

I would also have to add that I see nothing in Catholic teaching of our time that has ever said that it "doesn't matter" if you are Christian or not.

What the Church has consistently said is that God's desire is to save everyone, and that if someone through no fault of their own is ignorant of the Gospel or Christ and His Church, that in ways known only to Him God can reach that person. That is in no way salvation apart from Christ and is totally dependent upon His merits.

To believe otherwise is to accept a form of Calvinism, which would condemn people to a predestination of hell based upon the time and the place in which they were born. Never had a chance to hear the Gospel? Then obviously you're not one of the 'elect' God chose to save. It would also mean that our salvation is not only dependent upon the merits of Christ but upon the works of others who may or may not choose to share the Gospel.

The Church also clearly states that even though we recognize that God isn't dependent upon our efforts to save someone, we have a duty to evangelize, so yes, it does matter a great deal. It's the normative way that people come to know Christ and are saved.

The concept of invincible ignorance is deeply rooted in Scripture with St. Paul's refusal to judge those outside the Church (1 Cor 5:12-13) along with other passages (John 15:22, Acts 17:30, 1 Timothy 1:13-14).

I will agree with you that in practice many Catholics have an "it doesn't matter" attitude, and I believe that is part of the fallout of the way Vatican II was adopted, and that needs to change. It's our choice if we're going to be part of that change. But I have found no evidence that the Church ever changed its teaching on this.

One of the better things I've ever read on this topic:

Does Being Catholic Make a Difference? | EWTN

Markie Boy said:

I like that concept. I'm not sure it's totally accurate? Pope Boniface in Unam Sanctam in 1302 made a statement that has to be twisted pretty good to fit that. And in his day that statement would have excluded the Orthodox, which I'd totally reject

To compound that, his statement was an official Bull, teaching on faith and salvation. It seems to fit the definition of "Infallibility". Quite a can of worms.

Click to expand...

A papal bull, or encylical these days, is not by default infallible. It may contain an infallible proclamation, but usually they don't.

Each document has to be read in the context of its time and the issue it's trying to address. We don't do that when we try to line them up and compare them to each other. Sometimes worms are of our own making.

It is also not necessary that every time the Church speaks on the subject it has to also speak of all the nuances in other documents in order to not be contradictory. The only way a specific document would be contradictory is if it specifically denied the previous defined nuances.