Replies

But, that was my point. That Catholics can disagree on many things which are not essential doctrine or dogma. It does not make Catholicism any less true.

I was not arguing that disagreements themselves invalidate the supremacy of a source of Doctrine, which was indirectly in response to your argument that this does so as regards Bible churches.

For that post was in response to metmom's post but which was in response to your list which was in response to her request for specifics after you argued (unseen by me) that “Bible” churches differ on so much due the not being enough for some to know the truth of God. As regards that premise, truth also brings division, while your insufficiency premise presupposes that SS refers simply to formal sufficiency, and does not include the material sufficiency of Scripture, which provides for the church which helps explain the word. But i affirm that while “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, and Scripture is such that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means [in which the church is a part], may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

And that “there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

And also, “It belongeth to synods and councils [not as assuredly infallible but as a help in grace], ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word. (WESTMINSTER, cp. 1, VI. VII; Cp. XXXI, III)

Such men may and have erred, but as Scripture shows, God was able to establish writings as Scripture and preserve Truth and keep His promises before there was a church of Rome and without an assuredly infallible magisterium of men, often raising up men from without the formal magisterium to rebuke its errors, and thus the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel as the steward of Scripture and Divine revelation,(Mt. 23:2; Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and who thus challenged the authority of the itinerant Preacher (Mk. 11:28-33) who established His claims upon Scripture and the power of God it attests to. And by the same preservative means as before, the church as the body of Christ has continued and will, to the glory of God.

My comparison was between those who hold Scripture to be the supreme authority as the assuredly infallible Word of God versus those who effectively hold that the church is that authority. And what my response showed was that under sola ecclesia, though they may have common consent to core teachings, yet they also have formal divisions, and churches therein also differ much, even as in regards to their understanding of essential doctrines, including internally among their members (as well as the parameters of allowed disagreement). Due to the judgment involved, your interpretation of allowed disagreement “on many things which are not essential doctrine or dogma” can be different from that of other Roman Catholics, as well as regarding what all the infallible teachings are, and what degree of dissent may be given to papal Encyclicals and Bulls etc.

And among Catholics in general, papal infallibility is rejected by the Orthodox, besides the purgatory of Rome and her indulgences, the IC of Mary, etc., while Traditional Catholics reject your interpretation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and Lumen Gentium.

In addition, under sola ecclesia in its broader scope (which includes Mormons, etc.) are the greatest aberrations, as the church effectively presumes to be the supreme infallible-type authority, which defines itself as being so, as does Rome.

So, it is not irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that your list was posted as a sort of counter measure to what I said in the first place. As if the sheer number of points made about the Church somehow discounts the very real points of essential doctrine on which Protestants disagree.

Showing a few core truths that Roman Catholics concur on is irrelevant as to your premise that disagreement invalidates a source, or that sola ecclesia prevents such, as that does not solve the problem of the multitude of disagreements under Catholicism and her sola ecclesia model, which extends to essential doctrines in their meaning, and not just all the points related to them.

As for Protestant disagreeing on essential doctrine, that is actually one of the core essentials that SS type churches overall concur on in its basic sense, that men are saved as damned and destitute sinners by faith in the Lord Jesus to save them on His credit and expense, versus good deeds outweighing bad, or through progressive postmortem expiation and sanctification, and the power of the church. predestination is a divisive issue (and Rome has unresolved disputes about that, while some Catholics reject baptism by desire), but as Whitfield and Wesley (among many others) showed by their sharing each others pulpits while yet contending on the predestination issue as sincere holy men of God, one does not need to know the details of such in order to be saved by grace through faith, a faith that effects obedience by the Spirit to the Lord Jesus.

Thus the different understandings of how Prots may be saved according to extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and Lumen Gentium. Etc.****

But, that is a prime example of how the Holy Spirit works within the authority of the Church. The deeper understanding of the earlier theology and doctrines is of the mercy of God, the NATURE of God, as I said.

See below. That illustrates what i said about Rome's consistency being based upon her autocratically defining such, like as defining the required unanimous consent of the fathers.”

The doctrine of “outside the Church” there is no salvation has not changed because the Church is the Body of Christ, united to Him, therefore the statement, “outside the Church there is no salvation” is the same as saying outside Jesus, there is no salvation.

The Church just understands better...,

I am aware of the “Re-formulated positively” (CCC 846) explanation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, but in light of the weight of historical support renders it more like like the modern “better understanding” by if the establishment Clause, and thus it was a primary reason for the traditional Catholic schism that Vatican Two wrought. — http://www.romancatholicism.org/reply-to-a-liberal-part2.htm)

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Satis Cognitum (# 9): June 29, 1896: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff." Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (On The Care Of The Churches), Encyclical promulgated on April 8, 1862, # 3. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9AMANT2.HTM

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856):

“There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church) http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

Fifth Lateran Council: Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11, 19 December 1516, http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm

• Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox” schismatics] and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned...” Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873) The Promotion of True Religious Unity), 11, Encyclical promulgated on January 6, 1928, #11; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

• "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life..unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." — Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), proclaimed “ex cathedra” (infallible).

• Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1

"subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful..."(Fifth Lateran Council Session 11, 19 December 1516)

The COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE under Pope John XXIII condemned the proposition of Wycliff that “It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman church is supreme among the other churches.” [inasmuch as it would deny the primacy of the supreme pontiff over the other individual churches.] (Session 8—4 May 1415; http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTANC.HTM)

“Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff..” http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm

St. Thomas Aquinas: It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if we imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals [Greeks] says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36 http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38

St. Frances Xavier Cabrini: "Many Protestants have almost the same practices as we, only they do not submit to the Holy Father and attach themselves to the true Ark of Salvation. They do not want to become Catholics and unite themselves under the banner of truth wherein alone there is true salvation. Of what avail is it, children, if Protestants lead naturally pure, honest lives, yet lack the Holy Ghost? They may well say: 'We do no harm; we lead good lives'; but, if they do not enter the true fold of Christ, all their protestations are in vain." St. Frances Xavier Cabrini, "Travels", Chicago: 1944, pp. 84, 71.

St. Ambrose, "Expl. of Luke: "The Lord severed the Jewish people from His kingdom, and heretics and schismatics are also severed from the kingdom of God and from the Church. Our Lord makes it perfectly clear that every assembly of heretics and schismatics belongs not to God, but to the unclean spirit." St. Ambrose, "Expl. of Luke", ch.7, 91-95; PL 15; SS, vol. II, p. 85, (quoted in The Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 4: "The Book of Christians", Chapter 2: "Those Who Reject Christ's Church are Anti-Christian").

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6480/catholics/apostolic4chp2.html

There should be no doubt that what is being required is formal submission to the Pope, or at least an exclusion of those you call brothers in Christ.

Modern interpretation:

CCC #846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:.. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

818 All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

The Church just understands better, given the sincere Christian belief of so many people, that Jesus’ (God’)providence and judgement is His alone in regards to eternal life.

Rather, i think what it understands better is that it has no more secular sword, and cannot keep her membership counts except by giving in to the liberals.

Furthermore, Catholics who allow that Protestants can be saved outside Rome disagree as to what the conditions mean, as to what “knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it” means. Or how “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”” (LUMEN GENTIUM 16)

And here an apologetic against the charge of contradiction is that the magisterium has not provided a dogmatic and infallible teaching on where the Muslims stand in relation to God. Thus the sure guidance of the magisterium is invoked as a defense against false doctrine, as is its failure to provide sure guidance, largely leaving lay apologists to interpret what it means.