Studying Catholicism

[Yarddog]

Ok. Here's an update. The bad dreams that I had about the RCC were before pope Francis. God showed me in a dream that the new pope would be from Argentina and I predicted on Facebook that it would be Jorge Mario Bergoglio because at the time, he was the only frontrunner from Argentina. I can't explain it but I feel differently about the RCC with the election of pope Francis. I think he's going to change things for the better.

I'm not saying that the dream didn't occur but we cannot believe since you didn't tell us this dream before the new Pope was voted in.

I do hope that he brings change. In other words cleans house on anyone adversely involved in the molestation scandals.

He cannot change doctrine so anyone wishing this must reside themselves to what is there.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

He cannot change doctrine so anyone wishing this must reside themselves to what is there.

And yet, that HAS been done before. From "Anyone who isn't RC, is damned" to pretty much "Anyone who's a good person and believes in something couild be saved" - the difference between "before" and "after" Vaticanum II

 

[NoahMetoyer]

And yet, that HAS been done before. From "Anyone who isn't RC, is damned" to pretty much "Anyone who's a good person and believes in something couild be saved" - the difference between "before" and "after" Vaticanum II

Neither of these statements accurately relate Catholic teaching. The Church's teaching is that there is no salvation outside of herself. People may be saved who are visibly outside of the Church through no fault of their own, but they are still saved by our Lord, through the Catholic Church.

It's also worth saying that no matter how impaired Protestant communion with the Catholic Church is, Protestants are not outside of her. Every man, woman, and child who have been baptized have been baptized into Christ and consequently into the Catholic Church.

 

[Albion]

Neither of these statements accurately relate Catholic teaching.

When?

Both are correct. It just depends on which time in the history of the Catholic Church one is referring to.

 

[NoahMetoyer]

When?

Both are correct. It just depends on which time in the history of the Catholic Church one is referring to.

No. The Church never believed that all non-Catholics were hellbound in some strange and un-nuanced way. The Church does not now believe that people will go to heaven apart from God's work carried out in herself. Catholic teaching can do many things, but it cannot mutate into its opposite.

 

[Albion]

No. The Church never believed that all non-Catholics were hellbound

Oh dear. I'm surprised that you are unaware of the viewpoint held by the Catholic Church throughout most of its history. If you look into it, you'll easily verify that this is the case.

The Church does not now believe that people will go to heaven apart from God's work carried out in herself. Catholic teaching can do many things, but it cannot mutate into its opposite.

It was said that the church has changed its view and now thinks that non-believers can be saved by their works...and this is true. Christ's redeeming work is simply applied to them without their knowledge--so long as they otherwise live "good lives" according to whatever non-Christian religion they are part of.

 

[NoahMetoyer]

Oh dear. I'm surprised that you are unaware of the viewpoint held by the Catholic Church throughout most of its history. If you look into it, you'll easily verify that this is the case.


It was said that the church has changed its view and now thinks that non-believers can be saved by their works...and this is true. Christ's redeeming work is simply applied to them without their knowledge--so long as they otherwise live "good lives" according to whatever non-Christian religion they are part of.

1. I understand that you are referencing popular Catholic belief from before Vatican II (still passionately held by some). Popular piety, belief, and notions held by Catholics are not the same as the authoritative teaching of Holy Church. The Official Teaching--not the most simplistic interpretation--is not and has never been that every non-Catholic was hell-bound. The Church before the Council, as now, stressed her necessity for salvation; but she has never officially said that "no salvation outside of the Church" meant that every single non-Catholic was damned.

It's also important to consider what being "outside of the Church" means. Protestants who most Catholics before the sixties believed were damned, for instance, have always been regarded as being rather imperfectly inside of the Church not outside of her (hence why the Inquisition was regarded as having the power to "trouble" them).

There are very many resources on "No salvation outside of the Church." You might consider reading various statements of Catholic understandings of this doctrine. The Church has officially condemned the strictest and most literal interpreatation of this statement on many occasions.

2. I more or less agree that your second statement is an accurate one on the Church's Teaching.

 

[Albion]

1. I understand that you are referencing popular Catholic belief from before Vatican II (still passionately held by some). Popular piety, belief, and notions held by Catholics are not the same as the authoritative teaching of Holy Church.

I was referring to official church teaching.

It's also important to consider what being "outside of the Church" means. Protestants who most Catholics before the sixties believed were damned, for instance, have always been regarded as being rather imperfectly inside of the Church not outside of her (hence why the Inquisition was regarded as having the power to "trouble" them).

I was referring to people who had not so much as ever heard the name of Jesus Christ. The RCC's teaching now is that they may be saved if they faithfully adhere to their own religions, i.e. by works since they don't have a chance at faith.

 

[NoahMetoyer]

I was referring to official church teaching.


I was referring to people who had not so much as ever heard the name of Jesus Christ. The RCC's teaching now is that they may be saved if they faithfully adhere to their own religions, i.e. by works since they don't have a chance at faith.

1. No matter how many times you say it it will not become true that the Catholic Church ever taught that all men outside of her go to hell.

Baptism of the Blood
Baptism of Desire
Invincible Ignorance

These are concepts as old as the Church herself.

2. What you've said is semi-Pelagianism--that's a heresy condemned by the catholic Church. They are not saved by their "faithful adherence," by which you mean to suggest good works. They are saved by the One Merciful Judge who does not hold men accountable for not exercising a faith they never had explained properly to them. I would just as soon avoid some proof texting (and scandalous) debate, but the Church's postition on people who have not heard the Gospel is the Biblical and Patristic one that men are not judged on the basis of information they didn't possess.

 

[Albion]

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." -- Pope Urban II

What you've said is semi-Pelagianism--that's a heresy condemned by the catholic Church.

Well, it's the POV of the Roman Catholic Church since Pope John Paul II, however you want to characterize it.

 

[NoahMetoyer]

I agree that Bl John Paul II seemed to hold a semi-Pelagian position. But no pope has taught anything ex cathedra (ie infallibly) since the Assumption of Mary. Bl John Paul either:

a) Has been misunderstood by you and I and meant something else. (possible, not likely, but possible)

b) He was a semi-Pelagian and in error on this point. (My belief)

Either way, as embarrassing as his opinions (and actions sometimes) were, Catholic Teaching=/=every word said or written by the Pope.

 

[NoahMetoyer]

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." -- Pope Urban II

.

I did not see these giant red words. Boniface VIII said that. And it's an infallible statement. I agree with it. The Church teaches it. Still doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

If you're looking for debate on Catholicism, feel free to email me. I will not debate publicly, where non-Christians might see how deeply divided we are from one another.

 

[steve_bakr]

I did not see these giant red words. Boniface VIII said that. And it's an infallible statement. I agree with it. The Church teaches it. Still doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

If you're looking for debate on Catholicism, feel free to email me. I will not debate publicly, where non-Christians might see how deeply divided we are from one another.

I think non-Christians are aware of the diverse views held by Christians.

 

[steve_bakr]

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." -- Pope Urban II

Well, it's the POV of the Roman Catholic Church since Pope John Paul II, however you want to characterize it.

Actually, I find this argument about whether the Catholic Church ever changed its views rather tedious.

On the Protestant side, there are folks who want to say, "Gotcha."

On the Catholic side, there are these hair-splitting arguments saying that certain differences do not constitute actual changes.

Both sides seem to stray from the historical context of the teaching in question. I must be in a small minority. I would say to the Protestants, "So what?" I would say to Catholics, "I don't want my Church to trap itself into never being able to examine itself or make course corrections."

Catholic theologians should be able to do their jobs in these areas without being disciplined or silenced.

Karl Rahner used to say, "The sinful Church." My priest sometimes prays for forgiveness for the sins of the Church.

Does the Church ever make a mistake? I answer with a question, Is the Church full of human beings?

You could make a metaphysical argument that it is not actually the Church who makes a mistake, it is the people in the Church. That's fine. I guess that is what apologists are for.

 

[Albion]

Actually, I find this argument about whether the Catholic Church ever changed its views rather tedious.

Me too. But everytime some fired-up convert to Catholicism or recent graduate of some Catholic religion class decides he has to talk "non-Protestants" into submission by telling them that the Catholic Church has never changed its beliefs, it's necessary to set the record straight.

Both sides seem to stray from the historical context of the teaching in question. I must be in a small minority. I would say to the Protestants, "So what?"

The "So what" is that it's a falshood. If Catholics wanted to believe it themselves in the way that Mormons believe there really were golden plates or JWs believe that Jesus was nailed to a stake rather than a cross, that would be one thing. When they decide that their mission from God is to lecture the rest of us that we ought to be adhering to historical fiction ourselves, it becomes a different matter.

I would say to Catholics, "I don't want my Church to trap itself into never being able to examine itself or make course corrections."

Catholic theologians should be able to do their jobs in these areas without being disciplined or silenced.

Karl Rahner used to say, "The sinful Church." My priest sometimes prays for forgiveness for the sins of the Church.

Does the Church ever make a mistake? I answer with a question, Is the Church full of human beings?

Makes you wonder why the rest of your folks feel so threatened in their faith that they can't bring themselves to also say that?

You could make a metaphysical argument that it is not actually the Church who makes a mistake, it is the people in the Church. That's fine. I guess that is what apologists are for.

Sure. That seems reasonable. But of course it is unthinkable to the people you are talking about. For them, the institution itself, this one communion, must be infallible, or else they are on shifting sand. Their faith is predicated upon the notion that they are hitched to an infallible organization.

 

[NoahMetoyer]

Rahner was a Modernist heretic.

The Church never taught that all non-Catholics were going to Hell.

Baptism of Desire
Baptism of Blood
and invincible/inculpable ignorance
are not new doctrines

IF the average Catholic in 1957 had a poor understanding of these things and thought all non-Catholics were going to Hell, it is utterly immaterial.

 

[NoahMetoyer]

Re: the sinfulness of "the Church"

If you read the Fathers, their sense of the Church as "Rahab's house," a "reformed prostitute," can be very comforting these days. I've attempted to introduce this idea (perfectly orthodox and ancient) to good Catholics before; it doesn't usually go over well. Catholics are very attached to the idea that Catholicism is "both/and," but relatively few are willing to stand with Scripture and Tradition and acknowledge that the Church is all at once "the Spotless Bride" and forever in need of closing her garments and not fornicating with the devil.

I think a theology of the sinfulness of Holy Church is something we desperately need and I thank Protestants for preserving this portion of Christian Tradition more faithfully than the current Papalotrous (I kid the little Vaticanists) regime that cannot imagine that the Church's holiness and Christ's holiness are of the same species, but not in point of fact the same thing.

 

[steve_bakr]

Rahner was a Modernist heretic.

The Church never taught that all non-Catholics were going to Hell.

Baptism of Desire
Baptism of Blood
and invincible/inculpable ignorance
are not new doctrines

IF the average Catholic in 1957 had a poor understanding of these things and thought all non-Catholics were going to Hell, it is utterly immaterial.

It seems you must not have read Karl Rahner's writings on the Church. Your accusation of heresy demonstrates that. Rahner was an extremely creative defender of the Catholic Church. He faced modernism by engaging with secular disciplines. He, along with a few others, brought Catholic theology into the modern world.

Theology is about having an accurate interpretation of the past, addressing today's knowledge, and looking ahead towards the future of the Church.

 

[steve_bakr]

Re: the sinfulness of "the Church"

If you read the Fathers, their sense of the Church as "Rahab's house," a "reformed prostitute," can be very comforting these days. I've attempted to introduce this idea (perfectly orthodox and ancient) to good Catholics before; it doesn't usually go over well. Catholics are very attached to the idea that Catholicism is "both/and," but relatively few are willing to stand with Scripture and Tradition and acknowledge that the Church is all at once "the Spotless Bride" and forever in need of closing her garments and not fornicating with the devil.

I think a theology of the sinfulness of Holy Church is something we desperately need and I thank Protestants for preserving this portion of Christian Tradition more faithfully than the current Papalotrous (I kid the little Vaticanists) regime that cannot imagine that the Church's holiness and Christ's holiness are of the same species, but not in point of fact the same thing.

I may not use the same metaphors as you do, but I appreciate the point your are making. The Church must be able to engage in self-examination. And you are right that this does not go over very well with many Catholics.

 

[NoahMetoyer]

It seems you must not have read Karl Rahner's writings on the Church. Your accusation of heresy demonstrates that. Rahner was an extremely creative defender of the Catholic Church. He faced modernism by engaging with secular disciplines. He, along with a few others, brought Catholic theology into the modern world.

Theology is about having an accurate interpretation of the past, addressing today's knowledge, and looking ahead towards the future of the Church.

I've read Rahner. I still think he's a Modernist of the worst sort. His Eucharistic theology and his ecclesiology were both heretical. And as for "bringing Catholic theology into the modern world" you mean deforming Church teaching and leading to the "hermeneutic of rupture" that Holy Church is only just beginning to escape?