Unless, of course, they knew and believed it and decided to continue on in seperation anyway. Then they would be hell-bound, considering the discussion at hand.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If the belived that the RCC is Christ's Church then they wouldn't be atheists, jews or muslims. They would be Catholics.
Peace
No it is not an assuption. It's a matter of faith.
The Church was founded to at pentecost to evangilze. To spread the Gospel.
As stated earlier it's a matter of faith. Hince they do not know, because they do not belive that the CC is Christ's Church.
That is correct. That excludes protestants. The statement is the relationship the CC has with non-christian religions.
Historical context.
It was the Pope defending his rights against Philip the fair who wanted to make the CC subject to him in france.
Now if the CC is Christ's Church and the Pope it's head, then a secular kingdom(France and it's king) is subject to the Christ's kingdom the CC and it's head the Pope.
Unless, of course, they knew and believed it and decided to continue on in seperation anyway. Then they would be hell-bound, considering the discussion at hand.
They do know the Gospel, but they don't know the visible Church. Your, "thus" implies that your conclusion logically follows, when it does not.
And the language used elsewhere is clear and unequivocal in stating that the Church mentioned is not limited to the "visible church".
By definition, within the Church's self-understanding, all believers are joined in the Body of Christ. Whether or not some may choose an incomplete union while living on this earth is a seperate matter, and has no bearing on whether they may attain salvation through Christ.
To be subject to something doesn't require your consent, it is a matter of authority. You can disagree with the Pope all you want, but the simple fact that you disagree, on its own, doesn't make the Pope wrong.
Taken on a wider scale, Protestant Christians may not acknowledge papal authority. But that doesn't invalidate that authority. If that authority only applied to those who accept it, it would be the equivalent of moral relativism, because any given Christian could choose to disagree with that authority and still be right (in an absolute sense), simply by virtue of disagreeing.
I think the bigger issue here, is whether the Pope has that authority...
Let's look again at the language of 847:
""847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church . . ."
The exclusion is stated to apply to those, first of all, who "do not know Christ and his Church." Again, "do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church." Yes, Protestants DO know Christ, they DO know the Gospel of Christ. And they DO know of, know about, are familiar with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. Christians generally DO KNOW the RCC. Many Protestants DO NOT recognize the RCC as 'Christ's church,' based on Scripture. Are you proposing some other meaning for the word 'know'? The catechism was translated into English by the RCC. The words used have common recognized meanings. Are you suggesting some OTHER meaning for 'know'?
Secondly, we have the qualifier, "through no fault of their own.' Meanning what? Please provide the RCC-endorsed explanation of this phrase, with a cite. For example, does study ABOUT the RCC and rejection of the RCC based upon that study, constitute 'fault'?
We are talking here about the RCC at the time of Unam Sanctam. That certainly was NOT the case at that time. The official teaching of the RCC at that time was that the RCC is INDEED the one, the only true Church, and that those with other beliefs, who did not submit to the pope, were excluded from salvation. Are you disputing that?
But aside from that, in regard to the 1997 catechism, the RCC STILL claims to be the only true Church. The Church now concedes that God may work today through faith communions outside the RCC, BUT that any knowledge, spiritual beneifts, etc., blessings which may be found in communions outside the RCC in fact "derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church.from God." And, that all such is a call to Catholic unity, that is, to bring them into the Catholic fold. (paragraph 814)
That is NOT what the catechism states. Those who KNOW the gospel, those who KNOW the RCC but refuse to join or continue in it, do not have salvation.
"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."
The reference to 'Church' means here the Roman Catholic church. Do you dispute that? If so, please cite to authorized RCC publications, rather than private interpretation.
Nor does the RCC's insistence on the pope's authority in fact mean that he has such authority. It is simply a teaching of that particular church, one which is not held commonly by other churches. Scripturally, the pope does not have such authority. The claim to authority is a tradition of that particular church.
Is this the place for a Scripture study on that point? Not church tradition, but Scripture?
Dave
You’re being pretty liberal with the word “know”. “DO know of, know about, are familiar with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church” does not logically lead to “DO KNOW the RCC”. A counter-example: I may know of Barack Obama, I may have read his books, and know what he says, but it is a ridiculous leap for me to say that because of such knowledge, that “I know Barack Obama” in any personal sense.The exclusion is stated to apply to those, first of all, who "do not know Christ and his Church." Again, "do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church." Yes, Protestants DO know Christ, they DO know the Gospel of Christ. And they DO know of, know about, are familiar with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. Christians generally DO KNOW the RCC. Many Protestants DO NOT recognize the RCC as 'Christ's church,' based on Scripture. Are you proposing some other meaning for the word 'know'? The catechism was translated into English by the RCC. The words used have common recognized meanings. Are you suggesting some OTHER meaning for 'know'?
That’s still the teaching, but the Church is inclusionary, not exclusionary. To clarify, the Church, as the Body of Christ, includes all believers, regardless of their professed relationship to the “visible church”.We are talking here about the RCC at the time of Unam Sanctam. That certainly was NOT the case at that time. The official teaching of the RCC at that time was that the RCC is INDEED the one, the only true Church, and that those with other beliefs, who did not submit to the pope, were excluded from salvation. Are you disputing that?
Oh really? Like lionroar0, I love it when people tell us what we believe; particularly when it directly contradicts what we really do believe. From the Catechism (for the umpteenth time…That is NOT what the catechism states.
Speaking of official citation…Nor does the RCC's insistence on the pope's authority in fact mean that he has such authority. It is simply a teaching of that particular church, one which is not held commonly by other churches. Scripturally, the pope does not have such authority. The claim to authority is a tradition of that particular church.
You can’t have one without the other, as neither would exist in any recognizable form without the other; and putting divisions between the two is arbitrary and unnecessary – they point to the same truths.Is this the place for a Scripture study on that point? Not church tradition, but Scripture?
Can you explain what the OO model is?
We take the view that the primacy accorded to Peter was one of honour, not of authority; that he was, as he calls himself, and elder among elders.But from the EO perspective, doesn't that mean that primacy need not be established in the NT between the apostles for the church to in effect implement the primacy of one bishop over another? And if it takes an ecumenical church council to effect such a change, how did a patriarchate come about in Moscow?
Dear Beamishboy,
best of luck with your book and your educational aspirations. But a word to the wise, if you think you are going to King's College, Oxford, I suggest you do some geography homework, Oxford has no such college. I believe there is a university in the fenlands of East Anglia which has a college of that name; perhaps it is that one you hope to attend?
peace,
Anglian
And there it is. To further explicate this point with documentation.But anyway, since the issue is what Catholic dogma is (not whether it is true), you really can’t use an argument that is contrary to Catholic dogma. See how non-sequitur that is?
"847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:That is correct. That excludes protestants. The statement is the relationship the CC has with non-christian religions.Precisely. Protestants know the gospel, thus they DO fall under the so-called 'affirmation.(non sequitor)'
It is an assumption as opposed to a fact. It is a belief as opposed to a fact. Others believe that their church is 'Christ's true church.' The list is fairly long.
Please tell us when it was founded. I just wondering if it's one of the classics.The Christian church was founded by Christ, prior to Pentecost, to evangelize. The Roman Catholic church came along some hundreds of years later. Its teachings are significantly different from those of the church Christ founded. It is not the same as the church Christ founded. It is, however, one particular denomination generally thought of for purposes of secular categorization as within the Christian communion.Dave
Partially. RC commentators on Unam Sanctam distinguish between the historical/political issues and the spiritual issues of salvation only by submission to the pope, which are affirmed to be timeless and universal.
That, indeed, has been the historical position of the papacy. It is not the teaching of Scripture, however. I assume you are aware of that.Dave
You mean they would be hell-bound for believing it in the first place. To believe something that is patently untrue is wrong. To continue to believe it is obstinately wrong.
No he means if a person belives that the CC is the Church of Christ and then leaves the Church but still hold to this belive, then they maybe hell-bound.
As there is no salvation outside of the Church.
Peace
My dear Anglian,
Thanks for pointing out my error. Of course you knew I meant King's College, Cambridge. But please don't relegate the beamishboy to East Anglia. The beamishboy's theological degrees must be top-notch and surely only Oxbridge degrees will do.
Once my book is published, you will see in displayed in book shops all over the world The Definitive History of the Roman and Orthodox Churches - A Complete History of These Churches and How They have Departed from Apostolic Teachings by the Beamishboy, D Div (Cantab), MA (Theology) (Cantab), B. Th. (Cantab). That should look quite cool. Hehe.
This is not truth. For there is no salvatiout outside of Christ.As there is no salvation outside of the Church.
You are letting your mistaken ideas fill you with misinformation.Thanks for that information about the Orthodox church. The beamishboy is writing a huge book called The Definitive History of the Roman and Orthodox Churches - A Complete History of These Churches and How They have Departed from Apostolic Teachings but I'm having trouble with exactly what stand the Orthodox church takes. Apparently there are many many DIFFERENT Oral Traditions. Thank God there is only one Bible. I suppose churches that depend only on that one reliable Bible have it good.
Thanks again for your insight into the Orthodox churches. I need as much input as I can get.
That was my point.We are one Body with many Members. Want me to show all the verses where Paul uses the plural for Assemblies.
AGAIN - some confusion...Like the early NT churches, we believe that we are one body but many churches. We have Romans in the Bible but if you have the cheek to suggest those Romans were anything like the RCC, I'll roll on the floor laughing. They and the RCC are as different as chalk and cheese. Just read Romans and see for yourself.
Dearest to God Beamishboy,
I have a book I would like to suggest to you for historical reference. It gives a LOT of detail into the services of The Church.
http://www.amazon.com/Shape-Liturgy-New-Gregory-Dix/dp/0826479421 I think you will appreciate the author being from Oxford.
It's long and very deep. But I think you're just the person to read it and gain some things from it.
Best of luck.
Forgive me...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?