So is there salvation found outside the RCC or not?
V2 changed that.
How could it not be true for 1900 + years and now it is?
Something cannot both be true and not true.
Does truth change?
That sheds light on the big problem with depending on sola scriptura. The contradictory, conflicting, incompatible, mutually exclusive teachings and beliefs that sola scriptura gives to different Protestants, means that some Protestants using sola scriptura will be right and correct in their beliefs, and that some Protestants using sola scriptura will be wrong and incorrect in their beliefs, and sola scriptura provides no way for either group to determine with certainty which group is right, and God help those who get it wrong through sola scriptura.
That kind of reasoning can be used against Catholicism as well.
What about the EO who Catholics claim are Catholic?
Their beliefs differ significantly from the RCC.
How can there be two truths?
These differences are so important that there has been no reconciliation in nearly a thousand years after the split. The Eastern Orthodox differ with Roman Catholicism on these issues:
The Holy Spirit (the filioque)
In EO - The third person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Father alone as in the original Nicene Creed. The Father sends the Spirit at the intercession of the Son. The Son is therefore an agent only in the procession of the Spirit.
In RC - 'When the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He is not separated from the Father, He is not separated from the Son'.
Mary - Assumption and Immaculate conception of
EO - The Assumption is accepted and it is agreed that Mary experienced physical death, but the Immaculate conception is rejected. Orthodox belief is that the guilt of original sin is not transmitted from one generation to the next, thus obviating the need for Mary to be sinless.
RC - Both are dogmas of the church. The church has not as yet decided whether Mary actually experienced Physical death. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary, was at conception 'preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin' and should not be confused with the virgin birth.
Pope - Authority of
EO - As the Bishop of Rome, he has a primacy of honour when Orthodox, not of jurisdiction. At present, his primacy is not effective as the papacy needs to be reformed in accordance with Orthodoxy. His authority is thus no greater or lesser than any of his fellow Bishops in the church.
RC - The Pope is the 'Vicar of Christ' i.e. the visible head of the church on earth and spiritual successor of St. Peter. He has supreme authority (including that over church councils) within Christendom (The Power of the keys).
Pope - Infallibility of
EO - Papal Infallibility is rejected. The Holy Spirit acts to guide the church into truth through (for example) ecumenical councils. This Orthodoxy recognises the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787) as being infallible.
RC - The Pope is infallible when, through the Holy Spirit, he defines a doctrine on faith and morals that is to be held by the whole church. This is a dogma and is therefore a required belief within Catholicism.
Purgatory
EO - An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.
RC - A place of cleansing and preparation for heaven. Also a place where the punishment due to unremitted venial sins may be expiated.
I'd say these were the "biggies", but other differences also exist. These are explained here.
http://christianityinview.com/comparison.html
Clearly Catholicism is by no means exempt from the what Catholics consider the inherent weakness of sola Scriptura that they seem to think disqualifies it.
And areas of dispute are recognized in Scripture by God.
Show us anywhere where God demands lockstep adherence to formal doctrinal statements to become a Christian.
So is there salvation found outside the RCC or not? V2 changed that.
No, it did not.
How could it not be true for 1900 + years and now it is?
It always was true, and it is true, and it always will be true. (BTW: just to be picky, it's quite possible fr, say, the statement "There's a green rock on top of that mountain!" to be true for 1900 years, and then be "not true"... say, if someone removed the green rock. Just saying. Not germane to the point, but a caution abotu being logically precise, especially when trying to tear down someone else's position.)
Something cannot both be true and not true.
That's correct.
Does truth change?
Absolute, intrinsic truth never changes, no. Relative and/or extrinsic truths can and do change, as noted above. The truth about "extra ecclesia nulla salus" is irreformable truth, revealed by God, and it cannot change.
[paladinan]
That sheds light on the big problem with depending on sola scriptura. The contradictory, conflicting, incompatible, mutually exclusive teachings and beliefs that sola scriptura gives to different Protestants, means that some Protestants using sola scriptura will be right and correct in their beliefs, and that some Protestants using sola scriptura will be wrong and incorrect in their beliefs, and sola scriptura provides no way for either group to determine with certainty which group is right, and God help those who get it wrong through sola scriptura.
[metmom]
That kind of reasoning can be used against Catholicism as well.
We'll see. But even if that were true: how does pointing out the leaks in your neighbor's boat stop your own leaky boat from sinking? If it's a problem with sola Scriptura, then it's a problem with sola Scriptura, no matter what happens to Catholicism. So... how do you patch your own boat, in this instance (i.e. explain how thousands of "sola Scriptura" groups and individuals arrive at contradictory conclusions using "Scripture alone" and "the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit"?
What about the EO who Catholics claim are Catholic?
Yes, and no. They are (at present) still currently Catholic in the core sense of the word, yes... though they are in schism from Rome. But since they have split off from Rome (and from each other), they have no reliable way to stay fully tethered to the truths of the Faith... so they have strayed in some respects. (Think of it this way: a heretical Catholic is still Catholic, but he's an excommunicated one. He doesn't cease being Catholic, once he's baptized; he just becomes a "bad" Catholic if he falls into heresy.)
Their beliefs differ significantly from the RCC.
Again: yes, and no... but since the Church never claimed that schismatic Churches are guaranteed to hold to all the truths of the Faith (how could they, since the infallibility of the Church rests upon being in union with St. Peter and his successors?), this really won't help your case.
How can there be two truths?
That's too vague a comment for me to answer.
These differences are so important that there has been no reconciliation in nearly a thousand years after the split.
The split was almost completely political and policy-based (with bad things done by both sides), with disagreements about the "Filioque" part of the Creed being usually a mere pretext. More on that, below.
The Eastern Orthodox differ with Roman Catholicism on these issues: The Holy Spirit (the filioque) In EO - The third person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Father alone as in the original Nicene Creed. The Father sends the Spirit at the intercession of the Son. The Son is therefore an agent only in the procession of the Spirit.
That is not an accurate description of the EO position. The EO insist that, when the Holy Spirit proceeds/spirates from the Father, only the Father is the "first principle", the source of the whole Trinity... and Catholics believe that, as well. Some EO's are under the mistaken impression that Rome, in its "filioque", is making the Son a co-principal in the Trinity, and is "demoting" the Father thereby... and that is not true. The EO position has a very different emphasis which rankles Catholic sensibilities, yes... but it is not technically heretical, since it rejects no key part of Catholoic dogma.
One difficulty with talking about the Eastern Orthodox Churches is that, while they are still Catholic, they are fragmented, and there is no one "final court of appeals" for doctrine... so the individual Churches (which prevent them from being fully "Catholic/Universal", anyway, since many are attached to nationalities... e.g. Russian Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, etc.) can fall into heresy, with no recourse for deciding among differing views.
In RC - 'When the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He is not separated from the Father, He is not separated from the Son'.
Are you quoting that from somewhere? Because without any other context, that doesn't make a great deal of sense; even if someone were to hold what you mistakenly attribute to the Orthodox Churches, they would not need to believe that any Person of the Blessed Trinity was "separated" from the others (which is absolutely impossible).
Mary - Assumption and Immaculate conception of: EO - The Assumption is accepted and it is agreed that Mary experienced physical death, but the Immaculate conception is rejected. Orthodox belief is that the guilt of original sin is not transmitted from one generation to the next, thus obviating the need for Mary to be sinless.
Again: you're reading a Protestant bias into the idea, which isn't there. OC's believe that Mary was sinless
from the very moment of her conception (that's only the Ukranian Church's wording, but the other OC's are inunison with it), which is what Protestants reject... so your case isn't helped here, at all. The Orthodox have a different understanding of HOW and WHY that is the case... but on the specific point that Mary is sinless (they call her "panagia" = "all-holy"), and that she was ALWAYS sinless, the Orthodox and the Catholic Church are in complete agreement.
Re: papal primacy and infallibility, yes: the Orthodox Churches have erred, and they have erred in a matter which has been solemnly defined. But since they are not in union with Peter, I don't see how that helps your case (which seems to be an attempt to prove that Catholicism is divided in doctrine, which is not true; I'm afraid you'll have to stick to "Catholics in union with Rome" to try that.).
Purgatory: EO - An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.
Yes, and no. The EO believe that it is possible for SOME punishment due to sin to be purified after death, but they do not allow that ALL such punishment may be thus.
Clearly Catholicism is by no means exempt from the what Catholics consider the inherent weakness of sola Scriptura that they seem to think disqualifies it.
I'm not sure how you could make that claim... since the EO's, while "Catholic" in being closely united enough to the Church to be called actual "Churches" (all 7 of their Sacraments are valid, for example, and their priests/bishops are validly ordained), are not in full communion with the Church, and they are not guaranteed infallibility (since a prerequisite for that is union with the Bishop of Rome).
Show us anywhere where God demands lockstep adherence to formal doctrinal statements to become a Christian.
Aside from your dramatic, pejorative wording (e.g. "lockstep adherence"), I'm assuming you'd only be convinced if I "showed" you such a thing in the Protestant BIBLE? Beyond that, your question is baffling; it's certainly a requirement (for those of the age of reason) to believe that Jesus is Savior, that He died for our sins, and that He offers us eternal life... isn't it? Do you believe that this demands a "lockstep adherence to that doctrinal statement"? I think, rather, that truth is truth because it's truth... and it's no more of a tyranny to believe in those truths than it is to believe that 2 + 2 = 4. Your own "requirements" for salvation are iron-clad (e.g. you wouldn't admit of non-believers being "saved", right?), but I don't think you'd put your OWN requirements in such dark, foreboding terms, would you? Then why put Catholic requirements in such terms, aside from the fact that you don't like them, you don't agree with them, and you're biased against them?