Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Do you prefer the Erastian view? As Judge Noonan has pointed out, our law requires religious authority to submit to the civil authority, even to the point of denying moral doctrines, should the "greater good" of the state come into play. Look how the United States treated the Mormons. Look at the abortion and the suppression of efficacious action against abortion practioners. As to the question of extra ecclesiam... that doesn't come into consideration here. We are dealing with a medieval polity in which church membership and citizenship are identical.
You mean we could get together and cut the cheese, thats right nice of you angelo.
BigMack
There were 3 other instances of new believers speaking in tongues, without the result of the Day of Pentecost, where others heard them speak in their own languages. There is a difference between the tongues one receives upon Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and the Gift of Tongues used in the Church, which is to be interpreted and then is the equivalent of the Gift of Prophecy, which is not the same as the office of a Prophet. The tongues received at the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is for that person's use in prayer and praise to God, "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, mys spirit prays, but my mind does not understand. What shall I do, then? I will pray with the spirit, and and I will pray with my understanding, also. I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with my understanding, also....I thank my God I speak with tongues more than all of you." Praying in tongues allows the Holy Spirit in us to voice that which we cannot, either through lack of understanding, or lack of awareness. Why would anyone not want this?
This question was settled for me in 1972...I was Baptised in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, and have been ever since. If tongues were of the devil, as some of our Baptist friends like to say from time to time, then I should be nigh unto perdition as I write this, but that doesn't seem to be the case...and my love for God and His Word just keeps growing, and His blessings are becoming ever more evident in my life. The Devil can't fake that.
BigMack, you're so bad....:o) ROTFLMHO....
But, of course you are right. This is why Havoc's using this as an example of papal error is wrong. No dogmatic principle is asserted here.
I don't think 'spiritual authority' has anything to do with this, aside from its use as a cover for the pope's assertion of his own 'secular' authority. ( I am curious, though : Do you deny the right of spiritual authority to challenge the state's claim to loyalty over its citizens?)
And that relates to modern day America how?
Summary: nevermind. "Outside the Church there is no salvation" doesn't really mean "outside the Church there is no salvation". Furthermore, "FURTHERMORE WE DECLARE, STATE AND DEFINE THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE SALVATION OF ALL HUMAN BEINGS THAT THEY SUBMIT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF", doesn't really mean what it says, either. Move along folks, nothing to see here.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more or less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master--that's all.'
SD, diggy, it seems to me as an outsider that the biggest problem the Church has is its apparent utter inability to admit when screws up something doctrinally. I give JPII all the credit in the world for stepping up and apologizing for wrongdoings committed against the Jewish people by the Church. But when it comes to matters of doctrine, every discrepancy is denied, every conflict is papered over. Why not just say "Boniface was wrong"? Surely that is easier than to torturously try to turn A into -A. I suppose the belief that the Church cannot be in error in matters of faith prevents this from ever happening.
Why should we even try to explain it to you? You guys can't even understand simple concepts such as Theotokos and purgatory and still labor under the same bogus objections even after we try to break it down shotgun style.
Because of that, perhaps we see that trying to explain a more highly nuanced doctrine like extra ecclesiam nulla salus to you guys would be, in every sense, an exercise in futility. You guys already have your mind made up on everything else Catholic(even though 99% of the time you made up you mind using false data and presumptions), what can we say to make you, on this issue, think differently?
If you really want an explaination, here's a hint: Look at Steven's new name and ponder why we believe that Unam Sanctam and extra ecclesiam nulla salus doesn't formally apply to people born into non-Catholic religions who, through no fault of their own, no nothing about the distinctive Truths of the Catholic Church.
Pray for John Paul II
E-Mail from the Pontif to SoothingDave, offer that Jew some cheese, and get him on our side will ya. :)
BigMack
Because Unam Sanctam isn't the end all be all of Catholic teaching regarding extra ecclesiam nulla salus .
Pray for John Paul II
Nonsense. The state cannot force anyone to deny their moral or religious beliefs. The question is how willing you might be to be persecuted or punished for standing up for what you believe. I'd personally rather live in a state where the bulk of moral decisions are made privately than in one where the bulk of moral decisions are made publicly. We agree that adultery is wrong. Should the church force the state to impose legal sanction against adulterers? To what extent would YOU want church and state comingled?
Look at the abortion and the suppression of efficacious action against abortion practioners.
Abortion is evil. I believe it is murder and should be covered under those statutes. Let's consider a fuzzier case, though. Catholics also believe that contraception is a sin. Do you think the church should pressure the state to outlaw contraception?
As to the question of extra ecclesiam... that doesn't come into consideration here.
It sure as heck does, considering that your church has never repudiated this teaching, attempts to water it down and make it go away nonwithstanding. To make this a nonissue is very simple: repudiate the doctrine. Don't try to weasel around with the words, or say that it only applies to Catholics, or only to a certain place and time. Repudiate it.
No, I don't know what I'm saying when I speak in tongues. It does not originate in my mind, but in my spirit. I may have a sense of what I am praying about, for that's what tongues is, but I don't know exactly. Also, the language changes from time to time, it's not always the same language. That can be told from the sounds, they differ, sometimes quite a lot.
I usually do not pray out loud in tongues in church, for the very reason that it shouldn't be done unless someone known to have the gift of interpretation is present. I have heard interpretation before, and it is quite amazing what comes from that, and it has always been scriptural.
It's not clear to some, but there is a difference between the Gift of Tongues used in the church setting, and the tongues an individual uses as part of his prayer life. It seems to come under the old adage that "To the believer, no explanation is necessary, to the unbeliever, no explanation is possible".
Anytime, BigMack, anytime. We'll leave the girls at home. I'll provide the cheese. SD can bring the Rolling Rock. You bring the barbecue, and Steven can bring the beans. We'll pass the, um, time together.
You might offer us some cheese, we love cheese!
You guys can't even understand simple concepts.
We understand cheese, what more could you ask for?
BigMack
Let me repeat the passage in question:
FURTHERMORE WE DECLARE, STATE AND DEFINE THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE SALVATION OF ALL HUMAN BEINGS THAT THEY SUBMIT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF.
If this is not the assertion of a dogmatic principle, what is it?
( I am curious, though : Do you deny the right of spiritual authority to challenge the state's claim to loyalty over its citizens?)
I would say that the spiritual authority has every right to challenge the state's actions and to make a moral appeal to the citizens. I do not think that the spiritual authority has the right to usurp the civil authority of the state. "Render unto Caesar" and all that.
Angelo, Catholics believe that all who are baptised validly ARE members of the Church. They aren't formal members of the visable Church, though. Becuase they aren't formal members of the visable Church, Boniface's final statement doesn't apply to them. How can they submit to the head of the visable Church if they are not formal memebers of said visable Church?
You and the Protestants may not like the nuanced distinction made, but there it is. We don't call the Church the Mystical Body of Christ for nothing, you know.
Pray for John Paul II
Combine all that together and you get an ignorant, drunk, pious, redneck full of gas. Sounds like fun to me, you name the place and time. :)
BigMack
Standing and clapping, setting and opening the cheese.
BigMack
Hey Steven its a new game called spin the cheese, wanna play?
BigMack
Anytime, BigMack, anytime. We'll leave the girls at home.
Becky is pretty good at cutting cheese too!
BigMack
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.