joe

Catholicism's Ever-Changing Doctrine
What Is The Dogma Of The Day?


It is fascinating to study the dogma and doctrine of the Roman
Catholic Church. The fascination lies not in the dogma themselves but,
rather, in their imaginative origins and the incredible lengths taken
to substantiate them. It is also incredibly interesting to look back
over the years at how Catholic dogma, which supposedly are immutable,
seem to defy the RCC's definition and mutate anyway.

One wonderful dogma, defined by popes and councils, holds that:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation, thus membership in the
Church is necessary." (Adam S. Miller, The Final Word, Tower of David
Publications:Gaithersburg (1997), p. 16)

That seems clear to me. According to this dogma, one must be a member
of the Roman Catholic Church if he is to be saved. Stated another way,
the dogma reads: Extra ecclesia nulla salus.

Some modern Catholics might ask who is Adam S. Miller and what
authority does he have to define RCC dogma? Valid questions. The
answer, of course, is that Miller did not define this dogma but merely
included it in his little book of more than 110 defined dogmas of the
Roman cult. A dogma, for those who might have slept through catechism
class, is a teaching that every Roman Catholic must believe as a
matter of faith - that is, without reservation - lest he lose his
salvation.

In this age of easy-believism, both Catholic and non-Catholic, no
doubt there will be some who who might chuckle at such a strict
interpretation of an ancient rule of faith. And it is ancient, going
back at least as far as the Athanasian Creed (ca. 400 AD), wherein one
might read:

"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic
faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will
without a doubt perish in eternity. . . This is the Catholic faith'
unless everyone believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be
saved." (Denzinger 39, 30)

Some of the Church Fathers, who were not Catholic because there was as


Church, which is the Body of Christ and whose membership is comprised
of all those who are truly saved by God's unmerited grace, through
faith alone in Christ alone. That the Roman cult appropriated their
words and twisted their meanings to require membership in the RCC as a
prerequisite for salvation should come as no surprise to those who are
familiar with the Magisterium's peculiar and self-serving theology.
These words of Origen, written in the third century, make no mention
of the Roman cult in this formal declaration:

"Outside the Church nobody will be saved. (Extra ecclesiam nemo
salvatur)" (Origen, In Jesu Nave hom. 3,5)

Cyprian, another third century Church Father, wrote something similar:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation." (Salus extra ecclesiam non
est)" (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73, To Iubaianus, n.21, Migne:
Patrologiae Cursus completus. Series prima Latina, Parisiis; 1844)

The fourth Lateran Council declared, in 1215, that:

"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no
one at all is saved . . ." (Lateran IV, The Catholic Faith, Chap. 1;
Denzinger 430)

The bishops assembled at Lateran IV cited the above words of Cyprian
as support for their position that outside the Church no one can be
saved. They did not look to the inspired Word of God as found in the
sacred Scriptures for their support, but to the words of a man and
then changed their meaning to point to the Roman cult and not the True
Church as was Cyprian's intention.

There no doubt are some Catholics who might reject the words of
Origen, Cyprian and the Athanasian Creed as not be binding on the
church in that they were not formally defined according to the
criteria established by the First Vatican Council. I don't know that
ex post facto dogma are any more valid for the Roman Catholic Church
than are ex post facto laws valid under the United States
Constitution. Just to be certain, however, let us search for a
definition of this dogma that would satisfy even the criteria of
Vatican I. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII promulgated the Bull Unam
Sanctam, wherein these defining words might be found:

"With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one,
holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and
simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor
remission of sin . . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and
proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation
are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Denzinger 468-69)

Now there's a definition of a dogma if ever I saw one. Here is
another:

"It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that
those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also
Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in
eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was
prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before
the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the
unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those
remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for
salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety
and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, 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." (Council of Florence (1441),
Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino;
Denzinger 714)

Can there be any doubt that it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic
Church, defined by two e***enical councils and confirmed by two
reigning popes, that salvation is not possible outside the RCC? It is
further specified that one cannot be saved, "even if he has shed blood
for the name of Christ," unless he is in the very bosom of the
Catholic Church. What does it mean to "be in the bosom and unity of
the Catholic Church?" This points to another dogma; another link in a
chain of such teachings built link by link, drawing from one another
and supporting one another in an endless circle.

"The members of the Church are those who have validly received the
Sacrament of Baptism and who are not separated from the unity of the
confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of
the Church. (Sent. Cert.)" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic
Dogma, Tan Books and Publishers:Rockford (1974), p. 309; w/Nihil
Obstat and Imprimitur)

Pius XII made it crystal clear as to just what it takes to be a member
of the Roman Catholic Church:

"Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the
Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the
true faith, and have not, to their misfortune, separated themselves
from the structure of the Body, or for very serious sins have not been
excluded by lawful authority." (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis,
encyclical, June 29, 1943; Denzinger 2286)

A highly respected Catholic theologian and teacher explains what the
Pope said in these terms:

"According to this declaration three conditions are to be demanded for
membership of the Church: a) The valid reception of the Sacrament of
Baptism. B) The profession of the true Faith. C) Participation in the
Communion of the Church. By the fulfilment of these three conditions
one subjects oneself to the threefold office of the Church, the
sacerdotal office (Baptism), the teaching office (Confession of
Faith), and the pastoral office (obedience to Church authority)."
(Ludwig Ott, Op. Cit.)

To recap, it is a defined dogma of the RCC that not only is salvation
impossible outside the Church but that to be saved one must be
baptized in the RCC, profess the Catholic faith and participate in the
Communion of the RCC. We have this from at least two e***enical
councils and three popes. As frosting on the cake, let us add the
words of another pope, who declared it to be error to believe that;

"In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to
eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation." (Pius IX,
"Syllabus," or Collection of Modern Errors, Section III; Denzinger
1716)

"We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of
all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ." (Pius IX,
"Syllabus," or Collection of Modern Errors, Section III; Denzinger
1717)

One of the boasts of the Roman cult, a motto if you will, is that it
is Semper Eadem, always the same. That this applies to dogma of the
RCC was made clear by Pope Paul VI:

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this
infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and
teacher of all the faithful--who confirms his brethren in the faith
(cf. Lk. 22:32)--he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine
pertaining to faith or morals.[42] For that reason his definitions are
rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason
of the assent of the Church, is as much as they were made with the
assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed
Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the
approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal."
(Paul VI, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium),
November 21, 1964)

Another Romish theologian helps us to understand that dogma, once
defined, are immutable. He then goes on to explain that when dogma
change, it is not because they have been re-defined, but that they
simply have been clarified. Classic RCC doublespeak.

"Dogmas, as divine truths revealed by God, are eternal and
unchangeable. That is why a dogma can never be "re-defined." Yet, in
this work you will notice that most of these dogmas have been solemnly
defined and/or pronounced more than once. These are not
"re-definitions." Rather, they are further definitions and/or
clarifications which buttress aspects of a dogma that have come under
some form of denial or attack. The content of these denials/attacks
was often not anticipated in the preceding pronouncements. Hence, each
further definition is a MORE PRECISE definition of the dogma. It is
never the opposite. It is never an expansion or widening, and thus
changing, of what the dogma holds. It is never an evolution as to the
content and substance of a dogma. The reason this is so is, again,
because dogmas are immutable. Truth cannot change." (Adam S. Miller,
Op. Cit., p. 3)

That's the RCC's position on dogmas. Dogmas, being divinely-revealed
truth, are immutable. They cannot be changed because truth cannot
change. They cannot be re-defined, only clarrified or made more
precise. They can never be made to say something opposite to what they
originally said. Keeping this in mind, look again at the words used by
Pope Boniface VIII to define the necessity of membership in the RCC
and submission to the pope for salvation:

"With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one,
holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and
simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor
remission of sin . . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and
proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation
are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Denzinger 468-69)

And to this clear declaration of a dogma, add the clarifying
definition of Pope Eugenius,

"It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that
those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also
Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in
eternal life . . .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." (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the
Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)

Now let us turn our attention to the new Catechism of the Catholic
Church, which informs catechumins that:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation."

846. "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the
Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation
comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body. . .

847. "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of
their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of
Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere
heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as
they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may
achieve eternal salvation. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church,
Doubleday:New York, © 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc. -
Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 244 w/Imprimi Potest of Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger)

O my! Looks as though the CCC has done a bit of clarification here.
And it would appear that this clarification has so modified the dogma
as pronounced by Boniface VIII and Eugenius as to now make it possible
that people who have never even heard of Jesus Christ or the Roman
Catholic Church might be saved. If I had not been told differently by
Paul VI and Adam S. Miller, I would have thought this amounted to a
reversal of the earlier defined dogma. Clearly, I do not understand
how declaring that people outside the RCC who never heard of the RCC
or Jesus Christ are not to be considered when accepting as a matter of
faith that "Outside the Church there is no salvation." Maybe I can
find a more clear understanding by looking deeper into the CCC.

"1258. "The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who
suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism
are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of
Blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism
without being a sacrament." (CCC, Op. Cit., p. 352)

Whoa! This seems to be another clarification that appears to run
opposite to the earlier definition of the dogma, in particular the
words of Pope Eugenius, who declared:

". . .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." (Council of
Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull
Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)

When I was Catholic, I never worried about dogmas and definitions. In
fact, I do not recall having heard either word from the priest during
his homily or from the catechists in their teaching. Probably a good
idea, given that immutable dogmas indeed do mutate, in contradiction
of the RCC's teaching that they are irreformable.

Why does the Roman Catholic Church teach one thing and then
deliberately act in contravention of its own teaching? That is a
no-brainer. It is because the dogmas, doctrines, rules, practices and
disciplines of the Roman Catholic Church all have their origins in the
inconstant minds of men. Men change, cultures change, the dogmas and
processes of the Roman Catholic Church change. What does not change is
the revealed Word of God, as recorded by inspired men in the Holy
Scriptures. Seek truth in the Bible, not the imaginative and
inconsistent ramblings of the Magisterium.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth
on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into
condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

SOURCE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ye Must Be Born Again

joe

Catholicism's Ever-Changing Doctrine
What Is The Dogma Of The Day?


It is fascinating to study the dogma and doctrine of the Roman
Catholic Church. The fascination lies not in the dogma themselves but,
rather, in their imaginative origins and the incredible lengths taken
to substantiate them. It is also incredibly interesting to look back
over the years at how Catholic dogma, which supposedly are immutable,
seem to defy the RCC's definition and mutate anyway.

One wonderful dogma, defined by popes and councils, holds that:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation, thus membership in the
Church is necessary." (Adam S. Miller, The Final Word, Tower of David
Publications:Gaithersburg (1997), p. 16)

That seems clear to me. According to this dogma, one must be a member
of the Roman Catholic Church if he is to be saved. Stated another way,
the dogma reads: Extra ecclesia nulla salus.

Some modern Catholics might ask who is Adam S. Miller and what
authority does he have to define RCC dogma? Valid questions. The
answer, of course, is that Miller did not define this dogma but merely
included it in his little book of more than 110 defined dogmas of the
Roman cult. A dogma, for those who might have slept through catechism
class, is a teaching that every Roman Catholic must believe as a
matter of faith - that is, without reservation - lest he lose his
salvation.

In this age of easy-believism, both Catholic and non-Catholic, no
doubt there will be some who who might chuckle at such a strict
interpretation of an ancient rule of faith. And it is ancient, going
back at least as far as the Athanasian Creed (ca. 400 AD), wherein one
might read:

"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic
faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will
without a doubt perish in eternity. . . This is the Catholic faith'
unless everyone believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be
saved." (Denzinger 39, 30)

Some of the Church Fathers, who were not Catholic because there was as


Church, which is the Body of Christ and whose membership is comprised
of all those who are truly saved by God's unmerited grace, through
faith alone in Christ alone. That the Roman cult appropriated their
words and twisted their meanings to require membership in the RCC as a
prerequisite for salvation should come as no surprise to those who are
familiar with the Magisterium's peculiar and self-serving theology.
These words of Origen, written in the third century, make no mention
of the Roman cult in this formal declaration:

"Outside the Church nobody will be saved. (Extra ecclesiam nemo
salvatur)" (Origen, In Jesu Nave hom. 3,5)

Cyprian, another third century Church Father, wrote something similar:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation." (Salus extra ecclesiam non
est)" (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73, To Iubaianus, n.21, Migne:
Patrologiae Cursus completus. Series prima Latina, Parisiis; 1844)

The fourth Lateran Council declared, in 1215, that:

"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no
one at all is saved . . ." (Lateran IV, The Catholic Faith, Chap. 1;
Denzinger 430)

The bishops assembled at Lateran IV cited the above words of Cyprian
as support for their position that outside the Church no one can be
saved. They did not look to the inspired Word of God as found in the
sacred Scriptures for their support, but to the words of a man and
then changed their meaning to point to the Roman cult and not the True
Church as was Cyprian's intention.

There no doubt are some Catholics who might reject the words of
Origen, Cyprian and the Athanasian Creed as not be binding on the
church in that they were not formally defined according to the
criteria established by the First Vatican Council. I don't know that
ex post facto dogma are any more valid for the Roman Catholic Church
than are ex post facto laws valid under the United States
Constitution. Just to be certain, however, let us search for a
definition of this dogma that would satisfy even the criteria of
Vatican I. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII promulgated the Bull Unam
Sanctam, wherein these defining words might be found:

"With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one,
holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and
simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor
remission of sin . . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and
proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation
are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Denzinger 468-69)

Now there's a definition of a dogma if ever I saw one. Here is
another:

"It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that
those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also
Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in
eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was
prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before
the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the
unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those
remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for
salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety
and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, 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." (Council of Florence (1441),
Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino;
Denzinger 714)

Can there be any doubt that it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic
Church, defined by two e***enical councils and confirmed by two
reigning popes, that salvation is not possible outside the RCC? It is
further specified that one cannot be saved, "even if he has shed blood
for the name of Christ," unless he is in the very bosom of the
Catholic Church. What does it mean to "be in the bosom and unity of
the Catholic Church?" This points to another dogma; another link in a
chain of such teachings built link by link, drawing from one another
and supporting one another in an endless circle.

"The members of the Church are those who have validly received the
Sacrament of Baptism and who are not separated from the unity of the
confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of
the Church. (Sent. Cert.)" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic
Dogma, Tan Books and Publishers:Rockford (1974), p. 309; w/Nihil
Obstat and Imprimitur)

Pius XII made it crystal clear as to just what it takes to be a member
of the Roman Catholic Church:

"Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the
Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the
true faith, and have not, to their misfortune, separated themselves
from the structure of the Body, or for very serious sins have not been
excluded by lawful authority." (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis,
encyclical, June 29, 1943; Denzinger 2286)

A highly respected Catholic theologian and teacher explains what the
Pope said in these terms:

"According to this declaration three conditions are to be demanded for
membership of the Church: a) The valid reception of the Sacrament of
Baptism. B) The profession of the true Faith. C) Participation in the
Communion of the Church. By the fulfilment of these three conditions
one subjects oneself to the threefold office of the Church, the
sacerdotal office (Baptism), the teaching office (Confession of
Faith), and the pastoral office (obedience to Church authority)."
(Ludwig Ott, Op. Cit.)

To recap, it is a defined dogma of the RCC that not only is salvation
impossible outside the Church but that to be saved one must be
baptized in the RCC, profess the Catholic faith and participate in the
Communion of the RCC. We have this from at least two e***enical
councils and three popes. As frosting on the cake, let us add the
words of another pope, who declared it to be error to believe that;

"In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to
eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation." (Pius IX,
"Syllabus," or Collection of Modern Errors, Section III; Denzinger
1716)

"We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of
all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ." (Pius IX,
"Syllabus," or Collection of Modern Errors, Section III; Denzinger
1717)

One of the boasts of the Roman cult, a motto if you will, is that it
is Semper Eadem, always the same. That this applies to dogma of the
RCC was made clear by Pope Paul VI:

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this
infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and
teacher of all the faithful--who confirms his brethren in the faith
(cf. Lk. 22:32)--he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine
pertaining to faith or morals.[42] For that reason his definitions are
rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason
of the assent of the Church, is as much as they were made with the
assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed
Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the
approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal."
(Paul VI, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium),
November 21, 1964)

Another Romish theologian helps us to understand that dogma, once
defined, are immutable. He then goes on to explain that when dogma
change, it is not because they have been re-defined, but that they
simply have been clarified. Classic RCC doublespeak.

"Dogmas, as divine truths revealed by God, are eternal and
unchangeable. That is why a dogma can never be "re-defined." Yet, in
this work you will notice that most of these dogmas have been solemnly
defined and/or pronounced more than once. These are not
"re-definitions." Rather, they are further definitions and/or
clarifications which buttress aspects of a dogma that have come under
some form of denial or attack. The content of these denials/attacks
was often not anticipated in the preceding pronouncements. Hence, each
further definition is a MORE PRECISE definition of the dogma. It is
never the opposite. It is never an expansion or widening, and thus
changing, of what the dogma holds. It is never an evolution as to the
content and substance of a dogma. The reason this is so is, again,
because dogmas are immutable. Truth cannot change." (Adam S. Miller,
Op. Cit., p. 3)

That's the RCC's position on dogmas. Dogmas, being divinely-revealed
truth, are immutable. They cannot be changed because truth cannot
change. They cannot be re-defined, only clarrified or made more
precise. They can never be made to say something opposite to what they
originally said. Keeping this in mind, look again at the words used by
Pope Boniface VIII to define the necessity of membership in the RCC
and submission to the pope for salvation:

"With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one,
holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and
simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor
remission of sin . . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and
proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation
are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Denzinger 468-69)

And to this clear declaration of a dogma, add the clarifying
definition of Pope Eugenius,

"It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that
those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also
Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in
eternal life . . .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." (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the
Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)

Now let us turn our attention to the new Catechism of the Catholic
Church, which informs catechumins that:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation."

846. "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the
Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation
comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body. . .

847. "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of
their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of
Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere
heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as
they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may
achieve eternal salvation. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church,
Doubleday:New York, © 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc. -
Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 244 w/Imprimi Potest of Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger)

O my! Looks as though the CCC has done a bit of clarification here.
And it would appear that this clarification has so modified the dogma
as pronounced by Boniface VIII and Eugenius as to now make it possible
that people who have never even heard of Jesus Christ or the Roman
Catholic Church might be saved. If I had not been told differently by
Paul VI and Adam S. Miller, I would have thought this amounted to a
reversal of the earlier defined dogma. Clearly, I do not understand
how declaring that people outside the RCC who never heard of the RCC
or Jesus Christ are not to be considered when accepting as a matter of
faith that "Outside the Church there is no salvation." Maybe I can
find a more clear understanding by looking deeper into the CCC.

"1258. "The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who
suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism
are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of
Blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism
without being a sacrament." (CCC, Op. Cit., p. 352)

Whoa! This seems to be another clarification that appears to run
opposite to the earlier definition of the dogma, in particular the
words of Pope Eugenius, who declared:

". . .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." (Council of
Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull
Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)

When I was Catholic, I never worried about dogmas and definitions. In
fact, I do not recall having heard either word from the priest during
his homily or from the catechists in their teaching. Probably a good
idea, given that immutable dogmas indeed do mutate, in contradiction
of the RCC's teaching that they are irreformable.

Why does the Roman Catholic Church teach one thing and then
deliberately act in contravention of its own teaching? That is a
no-brainer. It is because the dogmas, doctrines, rules, practices and
disciplines of the Roman Catholic Church all have their origins in the
inconstant minds of men. Men change, cultures change, the dogmas and
processes of the Roman Catholic Church change. What does not change is
the revealed Word of God, as recorded by inspired men in the Holy
Scriptures. Seek truth in the Bible, not the imaginative and
inconsistent ramblings of the Magisterium.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth
on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into
condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

SOURCE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ye Must Be Born Again

holygrail

Fascinating

First you complain that a dogma is "wrong" - in my opinion correctly

But then you complain because over time it is "altered" - so you want
Catholicism to remain in the "wrong"?

You then say that the problem lies in the inconstant (changing) minds of
men - fair enough.

But you then say - ah but we have the "revealed word of God" as recorded
by "inspired men" and that this is somehow "unchangeable" in understanding
and interpretation

In other words you are rightly railing at dogma but then seeking to
replace it with the biggest dogma of all - the Protestant dogma of
"inerrant scripture" - a very extreme form of Sola Scriptura

What a pile of stuff and nonsense

Our understanding of scripture does "change", with our increasing
knowledge of the context within which individual do***ents were written.

We can recognise now the influence of Paulism and Johannine Paulism on the
Gospels.. We can more easily separate myth - as in the Christmas story -
from historical reality. We can recognise how theology and liturgy would
appear to have shaped the written recorded and how that record too altered
over time

You are making the same mistake Martin Luther did. You seek to bring down
one authority and heirarchy but seek to replace it with another - that of
the concept of "inerrancy". I think you are taking a step closer to what
in modern times is called "totalitarianism" and "fascim" in this

You see in your view YOU can't be wrong so long as your "interpretation
and understanding" is "correct" and these have ideal even Platonic forms -
and worse still YOU believe that YOU have it all right

Protestantism in recent years has retreated into a populist, jingoistic,
spin-doctored totalitarianism far worse than Catholicism. It has become
just as heirarchic and plutocratic. It has become a tool for the creation
of a non sharing ,non egalitarian, monocultural world in which classes are
as permanent as castes.

What you have done is not to free the world from dogma - you have reduced
it the dogmas to one GRAND DOGMA "the Bible is inerrant" - you are like
the pigs in George Orwell's book Animal Farm - you have taken a set of
potentially flawed ideals and reduced them to the spiritual equivalent of
chanting "Four legs good, Two legs bad"

And one rule "inerrancy" - which has at its core the equivalent statement
of the pigs in Orwell's book "All animals are equal but some are more
equal than others"

Protestantism in its modern Born Again Fundie version and the Catholicism
from which it sprung have gone the way of all revolutions and
counter-revolutions as satirised in Orwells book, "Animal Farm"

" Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No
question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures
outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man
again: but already it was impossible to say which was which."

(George Orwell - Animal Farm 1944)

++++++++++++++++++++

holygrail

Ye must grow up, mature, seek knowledge and understanding, learn logic and
reason, and become wise

And then you must pass that maturity and wisdom and knowledge and reason
on to future generations

The world is dying from cycles of infantile and juvenile thinking

What it needs is not those who are Born Again -

But those who have grown up into a caring and compassionate adulthood


The "game" is OVER


+++++++++++++++

holygrail

Fascinating

First you complain that a dogma is "wrong" - in my opinion correctly

But then you complain because over time it is "altered" - so you want
Catholicism to remain in the "wrong"?

You then say that the problem lies in the inconstant (changing) minds of
men - fair enough.

But you then say - ah but we have the "revealed word of God" as recorded
by "inspired men" and that this is somehow "unchangeable" in understanding
and interpretation

In other words you are rightly railing at dogma but then seeking to
replace it with the biggest dogma of all - the Protestant dogma of
"inerrant scripture" - a very extreme form of Sola Scriptura

What a pile of stuff and nonsense

Our understanding of scripture does "change", with our increasing
knowledge of the context within which individual do***ents were written.

We can recognise now the influence of Paulism and Johannine Paulism on the
Gospels.. We can more easily separate myth - as in the Christmas story -
from historical reality. We can recognise how theology and liturgy would
appear to have shaped the written recorded and how that record too altered
over time

You are making the same mistake Martin Luther did. You seek to bring down
one authority and heirarchy but seek to replace it with another - that of
the concept of "inerrancy". I think you are taking a step closer to what
in modern times is called "totalitarianism" and "fascim" in this

You see in your view YOU can't be wrong so long as your "interpretation
and understanding" is "correct" and these have ideal even Platonic forms -
and worse still YOU believe that YOU have it all right

Protestantism in recent years has retreated into a populist, jingoistic,
spin-doctored totalitarianism far worse than Catholicism. It has become
just as heirarchic and plutocratic. It has become a tool for the creation
of a non sharing ,non egalitarian, monocultural world in which classes are
as permanent as castes.

What you have done is not to free the world from dogma - you have reduced
it the dogmas to one GRAND DOGMA "the Bible is inerrant" - you are like
the pigs in George Orwell's book Animal Farm - you have taken a set of
potentially flawed ideals and reduced them to the spiritual equivalent of
chanting "Four legs good, Two legs bad"

And one rule "inerrancy" - which has at its core the equivalent statement
of the pigs in Orwell's book "All animals are equal but some are more
equal than others"

Protestantism in its modern Born Again Fundie version and the Catholicism
from which it sprung have gone the way of all revolutions and
counter-revolutions as satirised in Orwells book, "Animal Farm"

" Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No
question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures
outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man
again: but already it was impossible to say which was which."

(George Orwell - Animal Farm 1944)

++++++++++++++++++++

holygrail

Ye must grow up, mature, seek knowledge and understanding, learn logic and
reason, and become wise

And then you must pass that maturity and wisdom and knowledge and reason
on to future generations

The world is dying from cycles of infantile and juvenile thinking

What it needs is not those who are Born Again -

But those who have grown up into a caring and compassionate adulthood


The "game" is OVER


+++++++++++++++

nospam

JESUS -- THE SAVIOR clearly stated:

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto
thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

and

John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

holygrail

Yes Johannine Paulism is a dreadful fraud

John is full of crap that Jesus quite clearly NEVER said

duke

Sorry, not at home, but dogma never changes. That's why it's dogma.

Now what can and does change on occasion is doctrine. The celibate priesthood
is doctrine, not dogma. The Holy Trinity is dogma, not doctrine.

Better luck next time.

I have a suggestion for you. Why don't you stick with defending your baptist
faith, which is something you might know something about, and leave the Roman
Catholic Faith alone and which you know nothing about.


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

duke

Hey pharlap. You keep making that claim.

Why don't you briefly define who/what Christ is if not the Church that Paul
teaches.


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****