I'm not holding anyone to any type of standard especially the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. I'm merely posting the history of the Reformation and how Protestants were formed. I have no control over people who find history offensive. And, yes, I hope to post some Protestant history as well.
If you must know my reasoning for posting this information, there have been numerous discussions questioning the validity of Protestant doctrinal interpretation, especially during the Middle Ages. In most of these discussions I have found people denied the historical doctrinal development of the Church/church such as the Eucharist, devotion to Mary, etc. I have been told the Church always held these views and merely confirm positions through Councils which, of course, IMHO is rubbish. (Indulgences and penance are good examples of differing views.) Several people recommended I post the history of the church. I decided since that is the basis for many of these discussions it may be a good idea to post some history out here, fully understanding most people would be offended.
There is nothing incorrect or mean spirited with what this author has stated and none of the comments directed to me has dealt with the inaccuracy of three popes on the seat of Peter at the same time (contrary to what is often portrayed) or the problem with indulgences.
Your comment about the spirit of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church also ignores the historical position of the Vatican I Council which states there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. This position goes back to the Council of Trent and the Fourth Lateran Council of 1211. These are often glossed over by our Catholic brethern but have not been rescinded. Since you are not a member of the Catholic Church, you are, by their decree, at risk regardless of what post-Vatican II states. I presume you have not been baptized into the Church and since you do not personally partake of the Eucharist you are not receiving the grace of God. I don't believe I have to remind you that Protestants by some of our earliest confessions do not question the salvation of Catholics and accept them as our brethren based upon their confession of Christ as Lord.
Personally I take doctrine very seriously and try to make sure that I’m correct in my doctrinal understanding. Ecumenicalism is simply a watering down of the gospel. It is commanded by God for us to point out where we feel others may be in error and we do them and God a great disservice when we fail to do so. That's not to say we're always correct but there are certainly things we know to be true. History is a good place to start.
You conveniently ignore over 1000 years, first of all. You thus present a picture of a corrupt beast of a "Church" as if that was ALWAYS the Catholic Church. By presenting the Church in ONLY its bad side, what do you hope to accomplish - the presentation of unbiased, critical history, or a farce that attacks the straw man you love calling the Catholic Church? Perhaps you should glance at what you post, first.
Your comment about the spirit of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church also ignores the historical position of the Vatican I Council which states there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.
It sounds like you don't know what that means, even though I wrote you exactly the Catholic viewpoint. Clearly, it does not mean what you make it out to be. Also, this is not a new doctrine, as I posted quotes from the Early Church Fathers, such as Justin the Martyr - 150 AD. I think when you continue to ignore corrections, it LOOKS like you have other intentions than "correcting" us Catholics.
There is nothing incorrect or mean spirited with what this author has stated and none of the comments directed to me has dealt with the inaccuracy of three popes on the seat of Peter at the same time
There weren't three popes at once, there were three people all simultaneously CLAIMING to be the pope. If I claim to be the pope, does that mean there are two popes now? This is a political issue, certainly, not a theological one.
It is commanded by God for us to point out where we feel others may be in error and we do them and God a great disservice when we fail to do so
Agree. But at what point does one admit when they are wrong? I imagine the question can be reversed - and I will admit it when it is pointed out. But when over 1000 years of unanimous writing makes a claim, and is tossed out by you, can you then continue to make the above claim? That is why so many people are questioning your motives.
Regards
You should know better then this. A Protestant Baptism, done in the name of the Trinity using water, is considered a valid Baptism. This, again, has been the teaching of the Church since the Rebaptism issue back in St. Cyprian's time (200's). So Protestants ARE "in" the Church as a result of their Baptism, in some mysterious way. Also, the Eucharist is not the only way to receive God's Grace. It is the most effective way. But not the only way.
It is OBVIOUS that some Protestants are receiving the Holy Spirit, as THEY, TOO, bear fruit of His presence!!! Perhaps you should take a week or two off and read the Catechism. It would clear up a lot of your confusion.
Regards
It goes back to Cyprian (250s) vebatim and in content, back to Ignatius of Antioch who was a contemporary of John the Apostle.
As I'm sure you have been told on other threads, Harley, the "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is still taught by the Catholic church but it doesn't mean what you read into it.
You, dear Harley, can be saved and I sincerely hope will be saved, even though you are outside the visible Catholic Church and presumably never hope to set foot inside her.
If you are saved, as I hope you will be, you will be saved inside the Catholic Church even though not visibly so. All who are saved are saved through the Church because she is Christ's Body and outside of the Body of Christ there is no salvation. The pagan in Africa or Manhattan who never heard of Christ (that's now imaginable once more) who is saved by the baptism of desire will be saved through Christ and that means through the Church.
This "loose" interpretation of "nulla salus" did not originate post-Vatican II in the "spirit of Vatican II" but was taught openly at the point, a century or so after the Protestant Reformation, when it became clear that the schism was not going to be settled soon. "Children" (meaning later generations in general) of the original Protestant reformers, who had not deliberately chosen to reject the Catholic faith but who had never known anything but the Protestant spin on theology and history, would not be held by God to the same standard as the original reformers who knew very well what the Catholic Church claimed and chose to reject it.
Only your deliberate and knowing refusal of Christ and knowing and deliberate rejection of his Church would damn you. Since nearly all of our efforts to persuade you to even begin to entertain the possibility of seeing Catholic claims with an open mind have failed, you might come in under invincible mistakenness (invincible ignorance). On the other hand, perhaps you will be held accountable for having chosen to keep your mind closed. The same applies to all of us. We are supposed to seek truth with an open mind and are accountable for how well we've done it. Some people have had their minds closed by others and don't realize it; others know full well what they are doing.
You're posting Protestant propaganda. There are better Church history sources out there - even sectarian Christian ones. I'm partial to Schaff's History of the Christian Church - it is respectful even for the sides it disagrees with. I'd suggest excerpts from that.
Your comment about the spirit of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church also ignores the historical position of the Vatican I Council which states there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. This position goes back to the Council of Trent and the Fourth Lateran Council of 1211.
As others have already said, it dates much further back than that. Cyprian said ex ecclesia nulla salus, outside the Church there is no salvation. Cyprian also said that one cannot have God as his Father who does not have the Church as his mother. Both are true. The Catholic Church has not retreated from this position, nor should they. The Catholic Church has, however, abandoned the claim that outside the Latin Rite Church there is no salvation (if ever they held that). They have full communion with the Orthodox, and recognize the Protestant churches as real churches, even though they do not possess the fullness that the Catholic church ostensibly does. The Roman Catholic church is not co-extensive with the Church. The Catholic Church today doesn't claim that it is, if it ever did. It only claims to be the fullest or most faithful expression of Christ's Church - as all sects do.
The Catholic Church does not think that I am going to hell for being a Protestant. They think I am mistaken, but I think they are. They don't want me to partake of the Eucharist. Okay, I respect that - if they're right, I am not "discerning the Lord's body."
Catholics also recognize any Trinitarian baptism, and always have since the Donatists. Baptism, according to Catholics, is ex operae operato - the efficacy of baptism is indepedent of the moral state of the priest who did it. So, when I was baptised as an infant in a Reformed church, according to Catholic theology, it worked even though the pastor who did so was schismatic in their mind. (Let's leave aside the issue that I was subsequently baptised as a teenager.)
I don't believe I have to remind you that Protestants by some of our earliest confessions do not question the salvation of Catholics and accept them as our brethren based upon their confession of Christ as Lord.
The old Westminster Confession taught that the Pope was Antichrist. That is edging pretty close to that. (Most Presbyterian denominations - including my own - have redacted the claim that the Pope is the antichrist, saying only that he is not the head of the Church.)