| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
NL, my understanding is that you are correct. The quotes offered by metmom precede the Reformation; at the time they were written “the Church was synonymous with Christianity”. The anaethemas would have been for those who rejected Christianity per se.
As you post, NL, our present and abiding Catechism of the Catholic Church makes no statement of anaethema to those who profess Christian faith but who are not members of the Catholic Church.
It’s good to keep things factual and in context.
Sure it does....
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm
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:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. 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.336
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.
Nice thing about traditions of men is that they are so easy to amend, or change, or weasel out of.
The position of the Catholic Church for centuries has been that salvation is through it and it alone. The double speak that they engaged in during Vatican II was only to try to appear to say that salvation is not just through the Catholic church all the while still adhering to that doctrine. Vatican II never really came out and said that salvation could be gained through other churches. They just tried to gloss over their true position.
Simply recognizing that there can be good found in other churches or religions does not equate to acknowledging that salvation is possible through them. The attitude of most of the die hard Catholics on this forum alone demonstrates that the teaching and thinking that salvation through the Catholic Church alone is not dead otherwise, there would be no comments about Protestants being heretics.
Excellent post. Unassailable.
I don’t believe that it’s possible for anyone who is not in the Catholic Church to speak with clarity and any sort of inside knowledge about what the Church, and/or the Vatican II Council was attempting to achieve.
It’s easy to state that they were “trying to gloss over”, but no one can be certain of that opinion unless they can read the minds of those who drafted the documents. Without that kind of specific knowledge, the charge is without merit and becomes just something to say.
The Church always addresses the needs of the era. That’s a healthy sign. It’s not a matter of “so easy to amend” or “weasel out of”.
Addressing the era in which it is operating, the Church is demonstrating wisdom. Retaining that which is immutable truth is also her responsibility. I think all believing Christians know what those immnutable truths are. We Catholics have these truths in our Creed.
Rome hasn't changed in 500 years except to become even more insulated.
lol. You’re three steps ahead of all of us. 8~)
It's easy. Just read what it says, not what the Catholic Church tells you what you should think that it says. FWIW, I take it that the post was directed towards me although I could be wrong about that. But if it was and you were presuming that I don't know anything about the Catholic Church or that I was never inside it, then you would be wrong about that.
I KNOW that the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is through the Catholic Church alone because I grew up being taught it, BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ITSELF.
It’s easy to state that they were “trying to gloss over”, but no one can be certain of that opinion unless they can read the minds of those who drafted the documents. Without that kind of specific knowledge, the charge is without merit and becomes just something to say.
By that same reasoning, you can't then go on to tell us that Vatican II was saying was that people outside the Catholic Church can be saved without it.
Your reasoning works both ways, you know.
The Church always addresses the needs of the era. That’s a healthy sign. It’s not a matter of “so easy to amend” or “weasel out of”.
That's a bunch of nonsense, *addressing the needs of the era*. The needs of this era are the same as the needs of every era since the time of Christ. It wasn't until 1964 that the RCC finally decided to back off some and not sound so hard nosed about its position and likely that was only because people were getting educated and exposed to different thinking and the catholic church was having a hard time defending its position when people could read and think for themselves.
So is salvation found outside the Catholic Church or not? Can Protestants be saved through their own churches? If so, then why are they called *heretics*?
If not, then nothing has, in fact, changed about Catholic doctrine after all.
Changing the doctrinal position the church held for centuries means either that it was wrong for centuries or is wrong now.
Truth does not change. It cannot be voted on or mandated depending on anything. What is is.
Your choices are, either the Catholic Church was wrong then for a very long time and taught a lie for that length of time, or it is wrong now and is teaching a lie now.
It can’t be true at one time and not true another. Situational ethics do not apply to the truth.
This leads to two questions.....
*How does one determine which position is the true one?* and *What else that the Catholic Church teaches is equally unreliable?*
It’s obviously not unassailable.
People will try but it will require them setting up a strawman for that purpose.
No it hasn't. At a point in history the Catholic Church was the voice of Christ on earth and spoke of salvation requiring Christ. You cannot point to anything other than your poor memory or ill formed opinions to substantiate your claims to the contrary. And you certainly cannot blame this misinformation on your Baltimore First Communion primer.
Excellent post. Unassailable.
lol. Well, it’s unassailable to me. 8~)
Thanks for your admission that Calvinism is based on the teachings of Paul. I appreciate the candor.
A FReeper after my own heart! ;-D
Why would that hurt feelings? ;-D
ROFL! Yes, I'm wonderful. ;-D
Peter recognized the source and complexity of Paul's writings.
Amen. Great post.
Sorry to laugh, but your statement reminded me instantly of Dana Garvey's "Church Lady" on SNL. "Well. Isn't that spayshul?" His satire was the epitome of sanctimonious self-appointed church women everywhere. ;-D
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.