Posted on 10/01/2013 6:06:28 PM PDT by markomalley
I LOVE Get Fuzzy! My favorite comic strip!
I’d say you might want to check your hearing aids.
Dogma does gets altered or rescinded plenty of time. The Catholic church no longer support slavery as it did in the 17th Century. . .
Okay, I see where you are going here, but I would say you are using words in a way we don't. First of all, what you are listing above as examples are not in fact Catholic dogmas at all. Dogmas are divine revelations of the faith which are absolutely unchanging, such as the Virgin Birth, or the divinity of Christ. There are many doctrines in the Church, with various levels of certitude and obligation of faith, but dogmas are on a different level than all the rest. I think this distinction will have some bearing on what you may take from my original comment which had to do with the usage of the word dogma, and not doctrine, discipline, practice, etc.
As for development of doctrine, I would say I can see your point, though I do think there is a Catholic way of applying that idea. For one, dogma or doctrine is generally quite ancient and defined with specific situations in mind. But, in a changing world these concepts often require a new consideration in order to make them applicable to new situations unforeseen by the apostles or Early Church Fathers. For instance, is in vitro fertilisation acceptable for Catholics? And what of cloning? There are no apostolic teachings which directly apply to these and so the Church must deeply consider how Christian revelation can be applied, and this requires development of our understanding of doctrines into areas probably unknown to those who originally transmitted these definitions to us.
This leads to another idea which can confuse the non-catholic. The Church, historically, has always defined doctrine (to use the parlance) only when necessary, and not before. For instance, the Church has always believed that Christ is the Son of God and that He is fully human and fully divine. However, it was not always something which had been so clearly postulated as to be "defined" in the sense that we use the word today. Only when heretics arose denying something essential did the Church officially put it down in a form of a definition.
This often leads to confusion because people mistakenly think that the Church only formed the idea at the time when it was defined, and this is not so. The early councils went into great detail on the nature of Christ only because of various heresies, e.g. Arianism, and this represents a form of development of doctrine. None of the apostles ever, so far as we know, considered concepts such as homoousios or dyotheletism when passing on the apostolic teachings of Christ, and yet we use these terms because of the development of the Christological dogmas. The latter here is particularly indicative as it wasn't defined until the seventh century and was clearly developed from previously defined dogmas under the pressure of heretical claims of the period, i.e. Monothelites. This doesn't mean that the Church did not believe in the Trinity or the divinity of Christ until these definitions were officially promulgated, but only that, pushed on by heresy, the Church developed the dogmas more fully and expressed them in such a way as to entirely ensure that those particular dubious teachings were stamped out. But, those doing the defining could not see the future and avoid as yet unforeseen heresies and those are left for future generations to work out through the same process of development. This reflects true Catholic development of doctrine. What began as a simple assertion of Christ's divinity gave rise, under pressure of heresy, to a deeper consideration and definition of Christ's two natures, which even later was developed under yet new heresies and so led to the definition of Christ's two wills. But, and this is important, Christ's two wills does not change the dogma of his two natures which did not change the dogma of his divinity. Each remains unchanged and yet is deepened.
You do realize this is circular, right? As a Catholic you cannot believe that dogma can be altered or rescinded. Therefore, you know that dogma cannot be altered or rescinded. Even though, actually, it is, and quite frequently.
I would say not. For one, I actually did not say "I believe that dogma cannot be altered and therefore I know that it wasn't." I simply said I know it cannot be altered or rescinded. The pope can try to do that, and some could even believe it, but it would not actually change dogma. Dogma is a divinely revealed truth and is not subject to human alteration. If the pope says that Christ is not fully divine he is simply a heretic. Christ would still be fully divine. Not really a case of circular reasoning.
As for dogma being changed and quite frequently I could not respond without examples. Which dogmas do you think have been changed?
“Which dogmas do you think have been changed?”
Well, let’s start with this one:
First error: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” (Proposition XV).
Second error: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation and arrive at eternal salvation.” (Proposition XVI).
Third error: “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.” (Proposition XVII).
Fourth error: “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.” (Proposition XVIII). [Pius IX: Principal errors concerning the Church, Syllabus, Dec. 8, 1884 (CH 260-263)]
Compare:
Atheist Reporter: It’s a joke, I tell him. My friends think it is you want to convert me.
Pope Francis: “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us. Sometimes after a meeting I want to arrange another one because new ideas are born and I discover new needs. This is important: to get to know people, listen, expand the circle of ideas. The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the Good.”
Atheist Reporter: Your Holiness, is there is a single vision of the Good? And who decides what it is?
Pope Francis: “Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good.”
Atheist Reporter: Your Holiness, you wrote that in your letter to me. The conscience is autonomous, you said, and everyone must obey his conscience. I think that’s one of the most courageous steps taken by a Pope.
Pope Francis: “And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.”
Now, John Paul II:
He took part in Pagan rituals, received the mark of Shiva on his forehead, suffered a statue of Buddha to be placed on the altar by the Dali Lama during one of his prayerathons, kissed a Koran, etc, and said the following:
John Paul II, Address, May 22, 2002: “Praise to you, followers of Islam… Praise to you, Jewish people… Praise especially to you, Orthodox Church…”
John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 55), Dec. 7, 1990:
“God… does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression…”
Compare:
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of nonCatholics…”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103, A. 4: “All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Thelogica, Pt. II-II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “...if anyone were to... worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”
Correct me if I am wrong but this looks to me like you are simply showing how you think the pope in this interview contradicts Catholic dogma? I never denied that, and spent some posts criticising those who have. But you had suggested that the Church had, in the past, changed dogma and so I had asked which ones. This interview does not change any dogmas (as the pope lacks the authority to do that), but only demonstrates that the old challenge “Is the pope Catholic?” may not mean much anymore.
Well, hey, with all the claims of papal infallibility, the infallibility of the magisterium, being the OTC, being guided and protected by the Holy Spirit, by the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth over the least little suggestion of error within the church, the criticism of Protestantism for being fragmented and having no central authority thereby leaving it open to deception, yada, yada, yada, you really wonder?
One thing I've learned from FRoman Catholics, is that they and the church are NEVER wrong, even when they disagree with each other.
Any non-Catholic can have a group of FRoman Catholics beating him over the head about some point of Catholic doctrine, and when he finally agrees, some other Catholic comes along and beats him over the head again with how wrong he is after he agreed with the other Catholic.
They take both sides of an issue and so are never wrong.
Sheesh......
Well, you may be right, and I certainly cannot prove you wrong. There is an emphasis on infallibility among Catholics, and this often isn’t very nuanced in understanding. Much like the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which many well-meaning but confused Catholics exaggerate into one which is physical, a simplistic understanding of infallibility might be stretched to an absurd conclusion not intended in the original teaching. Like most truths of the faith infallibility is much like the blade of a knife which must be applied with precision rather than used like a club.
I can provide a link to a post on another thread where a Catholic just made the comment that his (Catholic) religion is promised to be infallible by Christ Himself, if you’re interested.....
Well, I suppose that context would be key in that because as a Catholic I certainly do believe that the Church is infallible and that Christ promised it. I actually think that most Christians believe this, but differ in defining what the church is and how that infallibility is expressed. Every Christian I know believes that the true church (as they define it) throughout history has believed and taught that the Lord is God, and that this is an inerrant teaching. Of course, many do not accept that any particular ecclesial organisation is itself infallible, but I don’t think that means they reject that the church, in some manner, is a reliable deliverer of the truth.
Now, what I object to is when people take the Church’s position on infallibility and exaggerate this to a point that every word uttered by the pope or a council becomes the equivalent of direct prophecy from the mouth of God. I don’t think this is what is meant or intended by this idea. Personally, since I know the Church has infallibly taught the true faith throughout history I can simply look at what it has always believed and proclaimed to see without doubt what is true. If a statement from some hierarch, whoever he may be, varies from that established truth, then regardless of what is claimed he is certainly not speaking infallibly at that moment. Beyond that, I don’t worry about it a lot. After 2000 years there is not a lot that needs to be added to the faith, and so personal infallibility seems an over addressed, and easily abused, concept. That is my take anyway.
This dogma has been changed.
Number 20 is very clear that it states one must belong to the Church in order to be saved. Yet I believe that Vatican II states that you do not have to belong to the Catholic Church to be saved. And, as we know, this pope has stated as much. The Church has skirted around this dogma by saying that if one is invincibly ignorant then they can be saved. But the Church's dogma is fairly clear.This dogma has been changed.
I think you have chosen a good example, and if you don't mind I am going to bother to go to a little length to respond. If this goes on longer than you think it should I apologise, but I think it deserves a real response, especially as I have at times found myself troubled by this very issue and therefore spent some time considering it carefully.
There is no doubt that many people think that Vatican II changed nulla salus extra ecclesiam (hereafter NSEE) but I think, ultimately, not. Let me give you some background on why I feel that way. We know that no dogma of the faith can limit God, and the Church has always believed that God can save whom He wills and that while he uses the sacraments he is not bound by them. If He desires to save a man he will regardless of whether he is Catholic. Therefore, the dogma is obviously not absolute but rather a general statement. Let us further consider baptism of desire which is undoubtedly a possibility for salvation that excludes outward membership in the Church, and this was referred to by St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent, among others. In other words, it is also a firm teaching of the faith. In this concept we see the beginnings of how we should interpret the aforementioned dogma. Though not outwardly Catholic a person responding to God's grace and seeking membership in the Church can, if in some way prevented from achieving that, still hope for salvation. And, when you think about it, surely it makes sense. If a person is driving to Church to be baptised, for instance, and is killed on the way is his soul definitely lost? The Church has long said not necessarily, and this bears directly on understanding the intents and limits of NSEE.
You mention invincible ignorance, and that is much like that above, and really demonstrates true Catholic development of doctrine. Let us look at the words of Lumen Gentium from the Council:
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.The two most important elements here are "do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church" and "moved by grace." First, the Church here is considering a person who truly does not know about the Gospel or the Church, which is a very select group. These are not simply Muslims who hate the Church for some reason, but people who have never heard of it. Their ignorance is not their fault, and it is total. Secondly, these people being considered "sincerely seek God" which is an important idea and are "moved by grace." God is working in them and, as we have said, He is not limited by the sacraments or even dogmas. Consider that He can see into the heart and he knows that this person would, if they heard the Gospel, respond and be baptised.
We know the Church has long taught and believed in baptism of desire and blood, and through these we can see how God is measuring the heart and intent which would apply even for those truly ignorant of the faith and the necessity of the Church, and yet NSEE has been attested to as far back as St. Cyprian in the third century. Therefore we must interpret both so that the other remains intact, and that means that what Vatican II eventually asserts with the words "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved" is basically a sound interpretation of NSEE. It is phrased slightly differently with a focus from a different direction but it is still intact. Membership in the Church, if you know what she is, is necessary for salvation.
You, sir (ma’am) are a jewel among Catholics, right up there with mrs. don-o
It is (sadly) rare to see such a well thought out and presented apologetic for a Catholic’s faith discussing the issue, not attacking the messenger nor posting inane cartoons.
There are a few others who post intermittently and so don’t exactly recall their screen names and so have missed them, much to my chagrin.
I think the key thing you said, cothrige --- a short way to put it --- is that we are bound by the Sacraments, but God is not bound by them.
If we know that Christ founded the Church as the ordinary means of extending His grace of salvation to all of mankind, and if we nevertheless refused to be joined to the Church or to remain in her, we would be rejecting the will of Christ and therefore rejecting our salvation. But if a person didn't know that, but was saying in their heart--- moved by grace -- "God, I desire to do Your will" --- well then, Christ will surely say, "Come then, my own lost lamb, and I will carry you on my shoulders back to My flock."
In a way, they join the Church in heaven.
Extra Ecclesia nulla salus.
I do not believe that salvation is in anyway connected with ANY church or denomination. Not Catholic, not Baptist, not Lutheran, not Methodist, Not Luther, Not Calvin, not ANYTHING or ANYONE.
No one organization or person has a corner on the Truth market. Truth is found in Scripture and the person of Jesus who is the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but through HIM.
Salvation is by faith, not of any works ordained by a religious organization or leader.
Titus 3:3-8 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.
So, knowing what the Catholic church teaches, that one must be in communion with it to be saved, is not found in Scripture, therefore no one is bound by their claims.
To clarify: you don't think Christ founded a Church? Or did He found it as unnecessary, to no purpose?
No. Jesus said He would build His church, which is not the same thing as founding an organization.
The word in the Bible that is translated as *church* is the word for *assembly* or *called out ones*. Church is useful for a variety of reasons: for meeting together for worship and teaching, for support and encouragement, for opportunities to minister and care for others, but one can certainly have a relationship with Christ without a church organization. And if one is depending on *church* to be the mainstay of their spiritual life, that person is not going to do well. The relationship with Christ is a personal one, to be nurtured by prayer and Bible study and memorization. Attending church really ought to be secondary in regard to spiritual growth, optional if you will.
There is no passage in Scripture that says that attending church once a week is required. The only command is to not forsake the assembling of ourselves together and that can even happen in a Bible study.
I think the problem comes in in defining what *church* is. Many denominations think of church as the building they meet in or the organization which they are part of. Scripture indicates that anyone who is a believer is part of the church, which is the body of Christ. It’s a spiritual entity, a spiritual organism, not an organization.
The problem with making it an organization or denomination, is that there are saved and unsaved people who attend any church. It’s not church affiliation or baptism or anything else which makes one saved. One is saved and becomes part of the church, the worldwide body of Christ.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12 that believers are the body of Christ and INDIVIDUALLY members of it, but there is never any indication that it is only one denomination. There were many churches mentioned in Scripture, really only known by the names of the cities in which they existed. Not a one of them ever claimed to be or was indicated to be by the apostles the *true* church, the one which all should belong to.
Also, the instructions given for leadership in the NT church really never went beyond the local level. There is no provision for a centralized authority to bring all the churches into one unit.
I certainly see how His Church goes beyond an organization, but certainly also it includes the organization. St. Paul says,
2 Corinthians 8:19
"What is more, he [Titus] was chosen by the churches to accompany us as we carry the offering, which we administer in order to honor the Lord himself and to show our eagerness to help."
The Church has some kind of organization, because it has the ability to "choose" a man for a ministry, and "administer" the offerings.
2 Corinthians 8:20
We want to avoid any criticism of the way we administer this liberal gift.
Paul goes on to justify the propriety of this Church administration. (He repeats and strengthens this point frequently in his epistles: that he and the other apostles have the right to govern: to send some, and recall others, to appoint particular men to teach and to de-authorize others.)
Ephesians 3:2
"Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you."
Here he's not only administering "things," he's administering "God's grace." Administering God's grace. What do you make of that? Is that one of the things you say is not necessary?
Reading the whole chapter and looking at the meaning of the word translated *administered*, the word indicates stewardship. Now, as you read in the chapter, Paul is referring to preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. Verses 8-10 refer to that.
Even should PAUL have had the authority to dispense said grace through his actions in administering sacraments, and that is nowhere indicated anywhere in that passage. However in Romans 5 where Paul is talking about the grace of God, he tells us that that grace is obtained through faith.
Romans 5:1-5 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
A keyword search of the word grace, does not indicate any mode for one person dispensing God's grace to another. It is GOD who gives the grace and the only qualification that seems to be indicated is the requirement of humility on the part of the recipient and that it is done through faith. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.
It seems that Catholicism teaches and Catholics believe that God's grace is dispensed or apprehended or activated through physical actions, such as baptism, communion, etc, and yet there is no Scripture that supports that thinking.
So, no, church is not necessary for one to receive the grace of God.
I can receive His grace as needed. Like when I'm on the interstate and some *person* cuts me off. My natural reaction is not a pretty sight. But at that moment, God gives me the grace to react with forgiveness. And I get it as needed.
You, sir (ma’am) are a jewel among Catholics, right up there with mrs. don-o
Thank you so very much for the very undeserved praise. And thank you as well for reading my rather overlong response.
Well, although I do follow his line of reasoning and understand what he is saying, I still disagree with the conclusion.
I do not believe that salvation is in anyway connected with ANY church or denomination. Not Catholic, not Baptist, not Lutheran, not Methodist, Not Luther, Not Calvin, not ANYTHING or ANYONE.
Well, that is certainly understandable, and more than anyone could really ask. I am curious though, when you speak of my conclusion you imply, perhaps, that you took my purpose to be that of convincing you of the dogma of Nulla salus extra ecclesiam, at least insofar as it may apply to the Catholic Church, but this was never my intent. Would I be pleased had you felt that way; certainly. After all, I am Catholic and so believe it myself. But, it never entered my mind to try to convince you of such a thing. We had been discussing whether that dogma was changed and my hope was to demonstrate that in reality, and in light of what the Church has always believed, that teaching is, in spirit, the same now as it had always been. That was the only conclusion I was seeking, and I hope that in some way I wasn't entirely unsuccessful in that.
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.