Semi-pelagianism unveiled

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]If someone disagrees with that and they won't submit to it they are seriously in error[/quote]


THe CCC is not infallable, much of it is not even doctrine, one free to dissent with some of it and still be a faithful Catholic.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 9 2004, 05:00 PM']

THe CCC is not infallable, much of it is not even doctrine, one free to dissent with some of it and still be a faithful Catholic. [/quote]

Are you saying that much of the CCC is optional. You would be in error.

I think you are making the mistake of thinking that what is not infallibly declared is therefore fallible. This is a fallacy. A faithful Catholic has the obligation to do there best assent to Church teachings on all maters of doctrine and must assent to all dogma. The CCC is primarily made up of dogmatic statements of the Catholic Church from Councils and Popes and scripture and writings of the Church fathers that support that dogma. Those statements (of the ECF that suppport a dogma)may not be infallible but that does not mean they are fallible and therefore optional. There isn't much of it that is really debatable. Further, I do not know of any doctrines of the Church that rather than be dogmatized later, were declared false. So I highly recommend and assent to it all myself in as much as I fully understand. The CCC is a sure norm of the faith.

As for much of it not being doctrine, the vast majority is. Some of it falls under practice and still requires submission to the magesterium, such as celebacy and the priesthood (though it has doctrinal and dogmatic aspects). Matt 16:19 says "WHATEVER you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven". Not just faith and morals. i.e. once again rules for lent are not OPTIONAL as your post would have us believe. Vatican one anethemitizes anyone who says the Pope only has authority with regard to faith and morals. So your out of luck with regard to the non-doctrinal/dogmatic parts. Sorry.

Thanks for the comment.

Edited December 9, 2004 by thessalonian

[Don John of Austria]

I never said anything was optional I said you were free to dissent not disobey, and I don't recall saying anything about Lent, however parts of the CCC are in DIRECT conflict with Infallable statements declared by Popes and in ecumenical Councils. The CCC is not itself an infallable document much of what is in it is infact infallable but not by virtue of being in the CCC.

[thessalonian]

"the CCC are in DIRECT conflict with Infallable statements declared by Popes "

Name one. I know where you will head and your wrong but humor me. After all that is what this board is about.

Withe regard to lent, easy boy. I do believe I used lent as an example of something that includes practice. I never said you said anything about it.

Blessings

Edited December 9, 2004 by thessalonian

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 9 2004, 03:30 PM'] One thing I find funny.  These people keep running around looking for what the Catholic Church teaches through some comment some website posts that is out of context or some imprecise or incomplete statement of doctrine, or even from someone who misunderstands the faith.  They even make things up themselves as to what the Church teaches.  More than any other religion on earth one can find what the Catholic Church officially teaches.  It is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  If someone disagrees with that and they won't submit to it they are seriously in error.  It is not the Catholic Church that is wrong about that persons errant understanding. [/quote]
This is a fair statement - however firstly, notice I said "[i]scholars within the Church of Rome[/i]", not "[i]the Church of Rome[/i]" (though I could certainly make the case that the Church of Rome herself teaches semi-Pelagianism and condemns the Pauline/Augustinian teaching it once embraced, if I so wished), if someone who is perhaps less knowlegeable in the Faith endeavours to know about Catholicism and happens to run across flyfree ministries, and sees "Grace alone is wrong" - they conclude that we are saved by God's grace plus a little bit of effort on our part.

Sure, it's not official Catholic Church teaching, but if it's not, shouldn't it be corrected?

Edited December 10, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Brother Adam]

Grace Alone, as most often defined by Protestants, especially evangelical reformed Protestants is contrary to the fundamentals of the Catholic faith. Grace alone as defined in it's proper context is quite appropriate and a true Catholic doctrine.

However in error you may be, I appreciate you looking around the site a bit.

Blessings,
Bro. Adam

[Brother Adam]

btw- I like your new sig. It shows the deep rooted fallacy in the understanding of how the scriptures work in the life of the Church Luther had.

Edited December 10, 2004 by Brother Adam

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Dec 9 2004, 07:47 PM'] Grace Alone, as most often defined by Protestants, especially evangelical reformed Protestants is contrary to the fundamentals of the Catholic faith. Grace alone as defined in it's proper context is quite appropriate and a true Catholic doctrine. [/quote]
Explain

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Dec 9 2004, 07:48 PM'] btw- I like your new sig. It shows the deep rooted fallacy in the understanding of how the scriptures work in the life of the Church Luther had. [/quote]
On the contrary, sir - he said it to those who claimed to have some kind of special revelation or tradition from the Holy Spirit that could not be proved by Holy Writ. I think Roman Catholics would be wise to listen to that phrase.

[Guest Aluigi]

read my post

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 8 2004, 10:41 PM'] the terms "faith alone" and "grace alone" as any Catholic would understand it connotates an idea that one without any good works can get into heaven. the Catholic Church says it is grace alone that saves, but because it works through faith which is kept alive by works it cannot be ALONE in the entire salvation process. [/quote]
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what grace is, and what it does. Yes, God's grace brings about good works in the one whose life is being transformed by Christ. I absolutely agree.

However, the term 'grace alone' means that it is solely God's grace that brings a person to salvation and secures them in perseverance thereunto. Rome, however much she may affirm the necessity of grace, disavows the [i]sufficency[/i] of it by saying that we must not resist grace, etc. In essence, they add the work of not resisting to God's grace.

[Mary's Knight, La]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 9 2004, 08:09 PM'] Rome, however much she may affirm the necessity of grace, disavows the [i]sufficency[/i] of it by saying that we must not resist grace, etc. In essence, they add the work of not resisting to God's grace. [/quote]
The sufficiency of grace is undisputed however, by definition "sufficient materials for building a house" are sufficient for building a house however, if the materials go unused they remain something other than a house.

God's grace is sufficient for salvation however, if we don't "use" His grace and live in it then how can we be saved.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 9 2004, 07:00 PM']

THe CCC is not infallable, much of it is not even doctrine, one free to dissent with some of it and still be a faithful Catholic. [/quote]
Nope.

APOSTOLIC LETTER
LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE

IN WHICH THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

IS APPROVED AND PROMULGATED

JOHN PAUL, BISHOP
SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD
FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY



With today's promulgation of the Latin typical edition, therefore, the task of composing the Catechism, begun in 1986, is brought to a close and the desire of the aforementioned Extraordinary Synod of Bishops is happily fulfilled. [u]The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a "valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion" and as a "sure norm for teaching the faith," as well as a "sure and authentic reference text"[/u] for preparing local catechisms (cf. Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, no. 4).

[Guest Aluigi]

well, first off how can that statement I made be a fundamental misunderstanding of grace if you agree with it and then bring up another point entirely? i didn't bring up having to comply with grace.

and as to having to comply with grace, it's just the wording that has you confused. let me rephrase this thing you've been hearing all the time from us about free-will that you have labeled semi-pelagianism. the "our acceptance of God's grace" thing is [b]faith[/b]. and so, if grace works through faith, and if there exists no faith in someone (which is the same as there existing no works) then the grace does not have anything to work with. works are a free choice, we may either do good works or do evil works or be indifferent in our actions. there is the action of free will, which either sustains faith, strengthens faith, or if it be the wrong choice kill faith.

faith is a free gift (like the free gift of a puppy, you must feed a puppy). works feed faith. faith is what grace works through. grace alone saves.

[Don John of Austria]

thessalonian, thessalonian, thessalonian, I doubt you have any idea where I'm going to go, you see this isn't the first time we have had this fight on Phatmass.




[quote]
The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a "valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion" and as a "sure norm for teaching the faith," as well as a "sure and authentic reference text" for preparing local catechisms [/quote]

Cmom-- funny I don't see anything there which says " every statement isn here is hereby infallably defined or everystatement in here is doctrinal, or one is obliged by order of the Magisterium to submit in the mind to every thing in the Catachism. So whats your point.