Posted on 03/27/2004 10:12:09 PM PST by Land of the Irish
Editor's Note: Because Catholic Family News often publishes articles that emphasize the infallible Catholic doctrine of "outside the Church there is no salvation," we have sometimes been accused of implicitly denying Venerable Pope Pius IX's teaching on invincible ignorance.1 In answer, we do not deny Pope Pius IX's teaching on invincible ignorance. Yet, because there seems to be widespread confusion on this point, we are presenting the writings on the subject by the erudite Redemptorist Father Michael Müller, who lived in the late 19th Century. Father Müller, in perfect continuity with the most orthodox Catholic writers of the period (especially, the great Bishop George Hay2) clarifies this teaching by explaining that invincible ignorance neither saves nor condemns.
The Background: Father Michael Müller is well known for his magnificent books The Blessed Sacrament, Prayer: the Key to Salvation, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and The Sinner's Return to God. He also authored many works that are now out of print. In 1875, he wrote a small booklet entitled A Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine3 in which he emphasized the doctrine that "outside the Church there is no salvation." His book was attacked by liberal-leaning American clergymen at the time. The main attack came from a "prominent Catholic priest" whom Father Müller only referred to as "Sir Oracle" (S.O.). Father Müller responded to these assaults with his superb 292 page book, The Catholic Dogma, which bears the Permisu Superiorum from his Redemptorist Order. What follows is taken verbatum from pages 211 to 218 of that book. The reader will immediately notice that in clarifying the teaching on invincible ignorance, Father Müller is also combatting the same errors so prominent in our own day.
"But, suppose", some one will say, "a person, in his inculpable ignorance, believes that he is on the right road to Heaven, though he is not a Catholic; he tries his best to live up to the dictates of his conscience. Now, should he die in that state of belief, he would, it seems, be condemned without his fault. We can understand that God is not bound to give Heaven to anybody, but, as He is just, He certainly cannot condemn anybody without his fault."
Whatever question may be made still in regard to the great truth, in question is sufficiently answered in the explanation already given of this great truth4. For the sake of greater clearness, however, we will answer a few more questions. In the answers to these questions we shall be obliged to repeat what has already been said.
Now, as to the question just proposed, we answer with St. Thomas and St. Augustine: "There are many things which a man is obliged to do, but which he cannot do without the help of divine grace: as, for instance, to love God and his neighbor, and to believe the articles of faith; but he can do all this with the help of grace; and 'to whomsoever God gives His grace He gives it out of Divine Mercy: and to whomsoever He does not give it, He refuses it out of divine justice, in punishment of sin committed, or at least in punishment of original sin," as St. Augustine says. (Lib. de correptione et gratia, c. 5 et 6; Sum. 22. q. ii art. v.) "And the ignorance of these things of salvation, the knowledge of which men did not care to have, is, without doubt, a sin for them; but for those who were not able to acquire such knowledge, the want of it is a punishment for their sins", says St. Augustine; hence both are justly condemned, and neither the one nor the other has a just excuse for being lost." (Epist. ad Sixtum, Edit. Maur. 194, cap. vi., n. 27.)
Moreover, a person who wants to go east, but, by an innocent mistake, gets on a train going west, will, as soon as he finds out his mistake, get off at the next station, and take a train that goes east. In like manner, a person who walked on a road that he, in his inculpable ignorance, believed was the true road to Heaven, must leave that road, as soon as he finds out his mistake, and inquire for the true road to Heaven. God, in His infinite mercy, will not fail to make him find out, in due time, the true road to Heaven, if he corresponds to His grace. Hence we asked the following question in our Familiar Explanation:
"What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity to know better?"
To this question we give the following answer:
"Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance." (St. Thomas Aquinas) Liberal Objections
S. O. remarks about this answer, "that the author is not theologically correct, for no one will ever be punished through, by, or because of inculpable ignorance." In these words, S. O. impudently imputes to us what we never have asserted, namely, that a man will be damned on account of his inculpable ignorance. From the fact that a person tries to live up to the dictates of his conscience, and cannot sin against the true religion on account of being invincibly ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, making thus invincible ignorance a means of salvation. This conclusion is contra "latius hos quam permissæ". To give an example. Rev. Nicholas Russo, S. J., professor of philosophy in Boston College, says in his book, The True Religion and its Dogmas: "This good faith being supposed, we say that such a Christian (he means a baptized Protestant) is in a way a member of the Catholic Church. Ignorance alone is the cause of his not acknowledging the authority of his true mother. The Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger; she calls him her child; she presses him to her maternal heart; through other hands she prepares him to shine in the kingdom of Heaven. Yes, the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of Heaven before this Christian; invincible ignorance will, before the tribunal of the just God, ensure the pardon of his errors against faith; and, if nothing else be wanting, Heaven will be his home for eternity."
We have already sufficiently refuted these false assertions, and we have quoted them, not for the purpose of refuting them, but for the purpose of denying emphatically what follows after these false assertions, namely:
"This is the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX. In his allocution of December 9, 1854, we read the following words: 'It is indeed of faith that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church; that this Church is the one ark of salvation; that he who has not entered it will perish in the deluge. But, on the other hand, it is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it.' "
The True Teaching of Pius IX
Now, in which of these words of Pope Pius IX is any of the above false assertions of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., sanctioned? In which words does Pius IX say that a Protestant in good faith is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? Does not Pius IX teach quite the contrary in the following words:5
"Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church -- which, from the days of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles, has ever exercised, by its lawful pastors, and still does exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord -- will easily satisfy himself that none of these societies, singly nor all together, are in any way or form that one Catholic Church which our Lord founded and built, and which He chose should be; and that he cannot by any means say that these societies are members or parts of that Church, since they are visibly separate from Catholic unity ...
"Let all those, then, who do not profess the unity and truth of the Catholic Church, avail themselves of the opportunity of this (Vatican) Council, in which the Catholic Church, to which their forefathers belonged, affords a new proof of her close unity and her invincible vitality, and let them satisfy the longings of their hearts, and liberate themselves from that state in which they cannot have any assurance of their own salvation. Let them unceasingly offer fervent prayers to the God of Mercy, that He will throw down the wall of separation, that He will scatter the darkness of error, and that He will lead them back to the Holy Mother Church, in whose bosom their fathers found the salutary pastures of life, in whom alone the whole doctrine of Jesus Christ is preserved and handed down, and the mysteries of heavenly grace dispensed."
Now does not Pius IX say in these words, very plainly and distinctly, that the "members of all other religious societies are visibly separated from Catholic unity; that in this state of separation they cannot have salvation; that, by fervent prayer, they should beseech God to throw down the wall of separation, to scatter the darkness of error, and lead them to the Mother Church, in which alone salvation is found."
And in his Allocution to the Cardinals, held Dec. 17, 1847, Pius IX says: "Let those, therefore, who wish to be saved, come to the pillar and the ground of faith, which is the Church; let them come to the true Church of Christ, which, in her bishops, and in the Roman Pontiff, the Chief Head of all, has the succession of apostolical Authority, which has never been interrupted, which has never counted anything of greater importance than to preach, and by all means to keep and defend the doctrine proclaimed by the Apostles at Christ's command ... We shall never at any time abstain from any cares or labors that, by the grace of Christ Himself, we may bring those who are ignorant, and who are going astray, to THlS ONLY ROAD OF TRUTH and SALVATION.'' Now does not Pius IX teach most clearly in these words that the ignorant cannot be saved by their ignorance, but that, in order to be saved they must come to the only road of truth and salvation, which is the Roman Catholic Church.
Again, does not Pius IX most emphatically declare, in the words quoted above by the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., that "It is indeed of faith, that NO ONE can be saved out of the Apostolic Roman Church?" How, then, we ask, can the Rev. N. Russo, S. J. say in truth, that a Protestant in good faith, such as he described, is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? That the Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger? That she calls him her child, presses him to her maternal heart, prepares him, through other hands to shine in the kingdom of God? That the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of Heaven before this Christian, etc.? How can this professor of philosophy at the Boston College assert all this, whilst Pius IX teaches the very contrary? And mark especially the scandalous assertion of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., namely: "This our opinion is the doctrine which has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX" To prove his scandalous assertion, he quotes the following words of Pius IX: "It is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it."
If, in these words, Pius IX says what no one calls in question, that invincible ignorance of the true religion excuses a Protestant from the sin of heresy, does Pius IX thereby teach that such invincible ignorance saves such a Protestant? Does he teach that invincible ignorance supplies all that is necessary for salvation -- all that you can have only in the true faith? How could the Professor of philosophy at the Jesuit College in Boston draw such a false and scandalous conclusion from premises in which it is not contained?
Pius IX has, on many occasions, condemned such liberal opinions. Read his Allocution to the Cardinals, held Dec. 17, 1847, in which he expresses his indignation against all those who had said that he had sanctioned such perverse opinions. "In our times", says he, "many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith direct their efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions. But quite recently -- we shudder to say it certain men have not hesitated to slander us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss, from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us."
Mark well, Pius IX uttered these solemn words against "certain men'', whom he calls the enemies of the Catholic Faith, -- he means liberal minded Catholics and priests, as is evident from other Allocutions, in which he says that he has condemned not less than forty times their perverse opinions about religion. Is it not, for instance, a perverse and monstrous opinion, when the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., says: "The spiritual element (of the Church) comprises all the graces and virtues that are the foundation of the spiritual life; it includes the gifts of the Holy Ghost; in other words, it is what theologians call the soul of the Church. (Now follows the monstrous opinion) This mysterious soul is not limited by the bounds of the exterior organization (of the Church); it can go far beyond; exist even in the midst of schism and heresy unconsciously professed, and bind to our Lord hearts that are connected by no exterior ties with the visible Body of the Church. This union with the soul of the Church is essential to salvation; so essential that without it none can be saved. But the necessity of belonging likewise to th
e Body of the Church, though a real one, may in certain cases offer no obstacle to salvation. This happens whenever invincible ignorance so shrouds a man's intellectual vision, that he ceases to be responsible before God for the light which he does not see?" The refutation of this monstrous opinion is sufficiently given in all we have said before. The very Allocution of Pius IX, from which the Rev. N. Russo quotes, is a direct condemnation of such monstrous opinions.6
Now these modern would-be theologians are not ashamed to assure us most solemnly that their opinions are the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and yet they cannot quote one proof from Holy Scripture, or from the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, to give the least support to their opinions.
The Rev. N. Russo and S. O. seem not to see the difference between saying: Inculpable ignorance will not save a man, and inculpable ignorance will not damn a man. Each assertion is correct, and yet there is a great difference between the two. It will be an act of charity to enlighten them on the point in question.
Neither Saves nor Condemns Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of sanctifying grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. "Invincible ignorance", says St. Thomas Aquinas, "is a punishment for sin". (De Infid. q. x., art. 1.) It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation.
But if we say that inculpable ignorance cannot save a man, we thereby do not say that invincible ignorance damns a man. Far from it. To say, invincible ignorance is no means of salvation, is one thing; and to say, invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation, is another. To maintain the latter would be wrong, for inculpable ignorance of the fundamental principles of faith excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy; because such invincible ignorance, being only a simple involuntary privation, is no sin.
Hence Pius IX said "that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and thoughts of man, will, in His infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault."7
Sub-titles and Footnotes added by Catholic Family News
Footnotes:
1. Encyclicals of Pope Pius IX's: Singulari Quidem, Singulari Quadam, and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore
2. Bishop George Hay (1729-1811) from Scotland was one of the greatest Catholic teachers and apologists of the early 19th Century. His three famous works are The Sincere Christian, The Devout Christian and The Pious Christian (all out of print). His works have received high praise from many Catholic bishops of the 19th Century. Paul Cardinal Cullen said, "the learned Bishop's writings display a great power of reasoning, and great critical acumen, while they supply an inexhaustible mine of erudition and Scriptural knowledge".
3. The book received the approval of a number of learned priests and theologians at the time, and was printed with the Imprimatur of the Most Rev. J. Roosevelt Baily, Archbishop of Baltimore and the Very Reverend Joseph Helmpraecht, the Provincial of the Redemptorist in the U.S.
4. See The Catholic Dogma, pp. 136 to 211.
5. The author here notes "which Rev. N. Russo, S.J. quotes on pp. 163-166".
6. The author refers the reader to the preface of The Catholic Dogma in which Pope Pius IX is quoted at length on the teaching that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
7. The next chapter in Fr. Müller's book is entitled "How Almighty God Leads to Salvation Those Who Are Inculpably Ignorant of the Truths of Salvation." Fr. Müller explains that "Almighty God, who is just and condemns no one without his fault, puts, therefore, such souls as are in invincible ignorance of the truths of salvation, in the way of salvation, by either natural or supernatural means." (p. 218) He then gives instances in Church history where God has employed both natural and supernatural means to lead the invincibly ignorant into the Church. Photocopies of these pages (pp. 118-249) are available from Catholic Family News
You may believe that nonsense but it was those same “unerring” church fathers “speaking authoritatively” who established the practice of making people pay to get their relatives out of purgatory which set the stage for the Reformation. One hundred years later the “unerring” church fathers admitted that the earlier group of “unerring” church fathers was wrong.
You may think you understood Protestantism but if you did you would not have made the claim that:
”…since your rely on your reasoning abilities and nothing more”
Protestantism is carefully reviewing and studying doctrines and theology against the scriptures and church history. Although I have a Calvinist belief, I can and do worship in a Southern Baptist environment very comfortably because, while we may differ in doctrine, we have the same core beliefs. And I can verify any Protestant church’s doctrinal integrity by looking at the scriptures, the history of the church, and doctrinal statements.
You are not as fortunate. There is nothing from which to verify the accuracy of the Catholic teaching except what you are told. I just hope the church fathers don’t make any other “errors”.
St. Paul was commanded by God to write to the seven bishops of Asia in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea - see Apoc. i.11. "...Write in a book, and send to the seven churches which are in Asia...." His intent was not to write a tome used to discern the doctrines of Christianity, but to pass along the Revelation given to him by God to the bishops of the early Catholic Church.
Do you find similar commands from God to the other writers of the New Testament?
The scriptures state clearly that all scripture is written by inspiration of God.2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:Ergo ... all of the writers of scriptures were inspired to do so ... by God.
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
I've bookmarked it for your convenience...
Homosexuals… Utica (RC) Priest Discloses He is Gay
Birth Control… Catholic charities and birth control
I don’t have one immediately at hand on divorce but I’m sure I could find one.
Not uncomfortable, just not all that controversial for some of us. Besides, sometimes it's just more entertaining or edifying to watch the fray.
On the other hand, many Protestant Churches pay for the abortions of their female pastors.
I would think that one would know that such a charge as this would require adequate attestation ...
... such as I would present to accompany the charge that the Catholic Church paid hush money to many of the victims of its pedophiles ...Church pays hush money to sex abuse victims -- The Times (London)
THE Roman Catholic Church has secretly paid thousands of pounds in “hush money” to dozens of Britons who were sexually abused by priests. The disclosure will come as a further embarrassment to the Catholic Church in England and Wales and to its spiritual leader, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, who has been accused of turning a blind eye to paedophile priests when he was Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. One of them, Father Michael Hill, was jailed in 1997 for a string of sex offences and will be sentenced tomorrow after admitting further charges of indecent assault on three boys. Several of the compensation payments — which were made on condition that the victims did not talk about them — went to people abused by Hill and Cardinal Murphy- O’Connor is said to have been aware of them. The police are already investigating claims that the Cardinal covered up Hill’s activities and he is now under pressure to resign over allegations that he failed to stop up to eight other paedophile priests in his former diocese. Inquiries by The Times have also established that the police are also investigating sex abuse allegations against priests in Birmingham, Salford and Northampton.
Protestantism is carefully reviewing and studying doctrines and theology against the scriptures and church history.
...and arriving at conclusions with your own authority, thereby making each Bible-thumper who can read his own pope. What "doctrinal statements" do you study? Those of Calvin? Is he the final authority? Do you realize that holding the true doctrine given by Christ is required by God and that by worshipping with those who you "differ in doctrine," you are contradicting the very Scriptures you profess to uphold?
"Whosoever revolteth, and continueth no in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." (2 John 9-11).
St. Paul here speaks of scripture that Timothy knew since his infancy - which was obviously referring to the Old Testament and more specifically the Septuagint which the Apostles relied upon. Paul had no idea at the time that his letter would be considered by the Church as "inspired," although we know now that by decree of the Church that the Holy Ghost did indeed guide his writing to be free from error and therefore this Epistle is in the Canon of the New Testament. Again, it may have been a pious belief that this letter from Paul was inspired prior to the Church's decree, but it was not known with certainty until the Church settled the matter in the Council of Carthage.
You are also guilty of circular reasoning by stating that the Scriptures are inspired because the Scriptures say they are inspired. This is a basic fallacy of logic. Again, from Karl Keating:
"What about the Bible's own claim to inspiration? There are not many places where such a claim is made even tangentially, and most books in the Old and New Testaments make no such claim at all. In fact, no New Testament writer seemed to be aware that he was writing under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, with the exception of the author of Revelation. Besides, even if every biblical book began with the phrase 'the following is an inspired book', such phrases would prove nothing. The Koran claims to be inspired, as does the Book of Mormon, as do the holy books of various Eastern religions. Even the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, found of Christian Science, claim inspiration. The mere claim of inspiration is insufficient to establish a book's bona fides."
St. Paul here speaks of scripture that Timothy knew since his infancy - which was obviously referring to the Old Testament and more specifically the Septuagint which the Apostles relied upon. Paul had no idea at the time that his letter would be considered by the Church as "inspired," although we know now that by decree of the Church that the Holy Ghost did indeed guide his writing to be free from error and therefore this Epistle is in the Canon of the New Testament. Again, it may have been a pious belief that this letter from Paul was inspired prior to the Church's decree, but it was not known with certainty until the Church settled the matter in the Council of Carthage.
You can't say, ... with any certainty, ... whether Paul had prior knowledge that his and other Apostolic writings would be canonized as scripture or not.
The pages of the (Old & New) Testament scriptures are filled with the writings of those who were given such foreknowledge as this.
In any case, the point you make is, now, irrelevant (in the sense that the scriptures inform the audience of the church), ... for the church has declared (through the inspiration of God) that the New Testament writings are scripture.
So, ... as the Old Testament scriptures informed Timothy, ... so the Old and New Testament scriptures inform us.
You are also guilty of circular reasoning by stating that the Scriptures are inspired because the Scriptures say they are inspired. This is a basic fallacy of logic.
Not so ... for the church has declared (through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) that this passage is, itself, scripture.
The logic involved might be a problem for the unbeliever ... but, for the believer, there is no problem.
The church is the second witness.
While the Catholic Church has specific doctrines for homosexuals, birth control, etc., they tend to be quietly ignored in order to placate those in disobedience. Don’t take my word. Look at the furor caused by one righteous Cardinal refusing to administer the Eucharist to pro-choice politicians. (At least some are willing to take a stand.) And we won’t even talk about the pedophile priests who are quietly reassigned.
You may call me an “ass” but when you Catholics start touting your virtues while ignoring your problems, you come off to me as a noise gong or a clanging symbol.
What "doctrinal statements" do you study?
The creeds (Apostles', Nicene, etc.) ?
Do you realize that holding the true doctrine given by Christ is required by God and that by worshipping with those who you "differ in doctrine," you are contradicting the very Scriptures you profess to uphold?
Not so ... the relevant question at hand is ... how to best comprehend the doctrine of Christ ?
The Protestants contend that there is no clearer presentation of the doctrine of Christ ... than His very own words ... recorded by those who sat at His feet. The very words of He Who is Truth.
The Catholic position is that Jesus' words must be explained ... that there are those who can explain Christ's doctrine better than He, Himself did ... that we must rather listen to these 'interpretations' of Christ's doctrine, ... than to His very words.
I just did. St. Paul was writing to Timothy in the example you gave, not the Church as a whole. It was not his intent to write Sacred Scripture; it was his intent to instruct and admonish Timothy, a bishop of the Catholic Church.
...for the church has declared (through the inspiration of God) that the New Testament writings are scripture.
Thank God - now we agree. The Catholic Church declared them inspired and thus we hold them as such.
The logic involved might be a problem for the unbeliever ... but, for the believer, there is no problem.
Logical fallacies are a problem for everyone, believer or not. You'll never convince anyone of the truth if your argument doesn't hold water.
You may wish to review the history of Popes Alexander VI, Julius II, and Leo X at www.newadvent.org (a Catholic website I use frequently to study church history). You’ll find that even the Catholic Church doesn’t have very kind words for the practice of selling indulgents. You may also wish to review an old post:
The Resurrection of Indulgences or Is Tetzel really dead?
for a history on this subject.
While you’re reviewing church history I would also suggest you check out Pope Honorius I at newadvent. His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680).
As far as which doctrinal standards I review, I review EVERYTHING including Catholic, Arminian and Calvin doctrine. And I go directly to the source, not to someone who will interpret it for me (although I look at opposing views). Where I feel I’m in error I’m willing to modify my views such as switching to a more Calvinistic perspective after 30 years.
Most Catholics on this board seem not to wish to research history and doctrine beyond what is published by the Catholic Church. Or so I've been told.
You can't say, ... with any certainty, ... whether Paul had prior knowledge that his and other Apostolic writings would be canonized as scripture or not.
I just did.
In that case, ... what evidence do you have to support your claim ?
St. Paul was writing to Timothy in the example you gave, not the Church as a whole. It was not his intent to write Sacred Scripture; it was his intent to instruct and admonish Timothy, a bishop of the Catholic Church.
While Paul's motive in writing to Timothy is is to be considered, ... I believe that one might also consider the purpose of God.
God inspired Paul to write ...
... and, quite obviously, God intended that Paul's writing be canonized into scripture at the appropriate time.
Logical fallacies are a problem for everyone, believer or not. You'll never convince anyone of the truth if your argument doesn't hold water.
Our contentions on this point are identical.
God inspired the writings canonized in the New Testament.
God inspired the church to canonize the collection of the writings of the New Testament.
The church (through the inspiration of God) declared the New Testament writings to be scripture.
If there are any logical problems with this presentation, ... you and I share them.
If I break a law, I effectively demolish the law? Or do I simply demonstrate my unwillingness to adhere to the law. There is a difference.
While the Catholic Church has specific doctrines for homosexuals, birth control, etc., they tend to be quietly ignored in order to placate those in disobedience. Don’t take my word. Look at the furor caused by one righteous Cardinal refusing to administer the Eucharist to pro-choice politicians. (At least some are willing to take a stand.) And we won’t even talk about the pedophile priests who are quietly reassigned.
The disobedient acts of a few or even of many, do not negate the validity of the reveled Truth of the Church, no matter how much you or the disobedient imagine it to be. No one can controvert truth.
You may call me an “ass” but when you Catholics start touting your virtues while ignoring your problems, you come off to me as a noise gong or a clanging symbol.
That's your impression, not reality. The reality is that you choose to focus on the presence of disobedience rather than the fact of true Doctrine. You have to because if you were to look at the reality of His Church, you would repent your apostasy.
If police ignore enforcing the law you have anarchy. While the law may be on the books, without enforcement you essentially have no law. That is the state the Catholic Church finds itself in today.
And, apostate that I am, I disagree with the theology of the Catholic Church and believe it is in error. However, and this will be reassuring to the Catholics I’m sure, unlike the Catholic view that anyone outside the church is an apostate; I do not believe that about Catholics. As much as I have looked into this matter (and it has been substantial) while I believe (IMO) Catholics to hold erroneous views, I see nothing in the core theology which would make me think they are nothing other than my brothers and sisters in Christ. And I based this not on my own "views" but my study of early church history and scripture.
There are many denominations that have told me exactly what you are trying to tell me; that you’re the one true church. And they have their doctrine all lined up. Fortunately, through God’s saving act I know exactly my position within Christ and what is thought of me is irrelevant. Someday all Catholics will realize that being a member of a church means nothing.
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.