Posted on 12/29/2009 11:32:54 AM PST by HarleyD
Looks like I’m darned to heck.
Thank you.
Now I know why I’m not a Catholic. WAY too complicated.
What a nice fanatic religion... Especially 16, 17 and 18! The Church hasn’t changed and is still embracing the same errors as always!
Good that I am not nor ever will be a catholic!
BTW:
this is the kidnapper Pius IX you are talking about... A kidnapper beatified by the Church... Par for the course!
I’m amused with #16.
We know that other Popes have been kissy faced with Mecca, but gee whiz, it goes back a ways!
that’s a list of ERRORS, genius.
I UNDERSTAND they’re a list of errors. However, if 16, 17, and 18 is saying there is NO OTHER WAY then the Catholic Church, then the Church has a problem with Vatican II and other recent statements now don’t they?
Thanks for posting this interesting piece.
Although he was clearly an arch spiritual totalitarian, the Pope displayed an amazingly modern comprehension of a wide range of objections and alternatives to the Catholic world view.
It’s a list of errors, so what? We are instructed not to fall for these lines as they are errors. Sad that so many have.
Glad to be able to rely on Scripture, instead of someone’s interpretation of what is RIGHT or WRONG.
Scripture Alone.
Number 17 comes a little closer to what you are trying to imply. But, here again, the wording is not as exclusivist as you might suppose. Another way of expressing the same thought is to say something like: "It might be possible (though not so well-founded in any given individual's case as to merely presume) that people in other faiths have some possibility of salvation, if they are in some way connected with Christ's Church." This is what Vatican II says.
Number 18 simply points out that Protestantism is not the system of belief that Jesus personally founded, and therefore is not on an equal footing with the Church He did found. Membership in those bodies, therefore, is not as pleasing to God as is membership in the particular body of belief He did authorize.
This is quite logical, as the roots of Protestantism only go back to the 16th Century. And it makes perfectly good sense from the standpoint of the Catholic Church, which does, in reality, claim to be founded by Christ personally. If such a claim is true, then, of course, one should belong to it and embrace its doctrines. You obviously don't agree with that, but, if the Church does, in fact, believe it can make a solid case for the claim, what else would you expect it to say?
A proposition which spawned many of the errors that Pius IX felt compelled to enumerate in this very list!
Please note #15-18. If these are indeed errors as established by the Chair of Peter, then statements made by the Pope about Muslims, Protestants, etc. cannot be true. They are in conflict with what the Catholic Church is stating right now.
So the question then becomes has the Catholic Church embraced the errors of #15-18?
What a pretty building. Is that the Mormon Tabernacle? ;O)
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he shall believe true, guided by the light of reason.
Do you believe Muslims to be saved? How about Hindus? What is the Church's position on Protestants with Vatican II? How about Anglicans?
Excellent. I was just reading about this in Harry Crocker’s excellent book on the history of the Catholic Church. Thanks for posting.
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.