No Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church

[dairygirl4u2c]

thre is a certain poetic-ness, that i dont think most people realize who are not knowledgable. if the CC is true, and the major apparent contradiction is this, in my mind, about no salvation outside... it's the one teaching that God might want people to stumble upon. to really think about.
i mean, the popes didn't explicitly word for word say that the ignorant would be condemned,, they just sayd "every human creature' etc... it wasn't expounded upon, i mean. so it's at least plausible the CC is true.

everything else is more debateable. 'did the pope, intend, to teach, the church as a whole', fulfilling the criteria for an infallible statement.
that quote about about limbo being false for example- he intended to teach that limbo was false, an then said they go to hell instead. a legal concept is 'dicta'- the intention was to teach about limbo being false and the other statements might just be talking wihtout really considering it much. if that's the case, it's not much to say about intending the teaching.
then there's limbo in an old version of the catchism, not that the catechisms are infallible.
then there's just general asking whether a teaching fit the criteria above. for what's behind the catechism, the encyclycal or whatever etc. (not that encyclicals are per se always infallible, but)

and there's also a big irony, in most of these formidable issues, are the very issues that the 'tradictionalists' and sedevacantists believe . then the CC would be much much more formidable to argue against.

random controversial quotes:
"Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life."
(Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology
of the Nervous System, 14 September 1952, XIV, 328)

Edited October 2, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Winchester' date='03 October 2009 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1254495924' post='1976214']
Thief on the cross.
[/quote]
Whether this was true or a parable. (I think Mark didn't mention it) The moral of the story was that it is never too late for salvation!! And it also means that a person need only to love their God and neighbour (compassion of Jesus suffering) and they will be saved!! You could tip a lake of water over a persons head and rub an oil well of oil onto their forehead but if they lack what the thief had in his soul then they are doomed!

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='02 October 2009 - 06:32 PM' timestamp='1254522777' post='1976460']
Whether this was true or a parable. (I think Mark didn't mention it) The moral of the story was that it is never too late for salvation!! And it also means that a person need only to love their God and neighbour (compassion of Jesus suffering) and they will be saved!! You could tip a lake of water over a persons head and rub an oil well of oil onto their forehead but if they lack what the thief had in his soul then they are doomed!
[/quote]
Mark may not have mentioned it, but it's in the midst of a true account, not a parable.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Winchester' date='03 October 2009 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1254538710' post='1976544']
Mark may not have mentioned it, but it's in the midst of a true account, not a parable.
[/quote]
I only mentioned parable because as you may have noticed I am an unassuming person but I would be inclined to think that this was a true account. Mark might have been a bit depressed when he wrote it, because he didn't see any good in either thief and witnessing Jesus crucifixion would have been depressing. I always found it an inspiring story how Jesus turned and said "You will be with me in paradise this day!" No mention of Purgatory or waiting for judgement day!! Just unconditional love.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Mark of the Cross

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='02 October 2009 - 05:57 PM' timestamp='1254520673' post='1976441']
thre is a certain poetic-ness, that i dont think most people realize who are not knowledgable. if the CC is true, and the major apparent contradiction is this, in my mind, about no salvation outside... it's the one teaching that God might want people to stumble upon. to really think about.[/quote]

Where is the apparent contradiction?

[mortify]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='03 October 2009 - 08:19 PM' timestamp='1254615559' post='1976946']
I only mentioned parable because as you may have noticed I am an unassuming person but I would be inclined to think that this was a true account. Mark might have been a bit depressed when he wrote it, because he didn't see any good in either thief and witnessing Jesus crucifixion would have been depressing. I always found it an inspiring story how Jesus turned and said "You will be with me in paradise this day!" No mention of Purgatory or waiting for judgement day!! Just unconditional love.
[/quote]

You treat the Gospels the way Pagans treat their myths.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='mortify' date='04 October 2009 - 03:36 PM' timestamp='1254630977' post='1977147']
You treat the Gospels the way Pagans treat their myths.
[/quote]
How do Pagans treat their myths? If you are referring to my not taking them as truth absolutism in their literal form. No I don't! There are many contradictions in the Bible. Here we have Luke relating the story of a man who was saved in the final moments of his life apparently by faith alone. But Mark doesn't! Therefore somebody is wrong even if only by omission. If Mark was correct then Luke was inspired to include a story which was a parable, but this does not reduce it's importance. It would still be the infallible word of God. Furthermore if you look on the web you will see that although it appears that the thief was saved by faith alone some argue that since he knew who Jesus was he may well have been baptised a Christian! I frequently challenge scripture on forums because I would not see these differing aspects by just reading the Bible. There are many very learned people who write on this phorum and I love challenging them to see what their response may be. Since I myself have little education and have a short attention span I can learn much more by this method.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='04 October 2009 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1254693771' post='1977575']
There are many contradictions in the Bible.
[/quote]



I believe that God is the author of holy Scripture. I believe that God is absolute Truth and that He cannot lie. Therefore, I believe that the holy Scriptures are inerrant and thus that they do not contradict each other.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='05 October 2009 - 09:09 AM' timestamp='1254694144' post='1977581']


I believe that God is the author of holy Scripture. I believe that God is absolute Truth and that He cannot lie. Therefore, I believe that the holy Scriptures are inerrant and thus that they do not contradict each other.
[/quote]
But I just gave you an example, even if only by omission! Why do we need four accounts of the same thing? In literature this is usually done so that if one does not describe something quite well then the reader has three more chances to understand it better.
If an atheist were to open the Bible and read, they would be reading an ordinary book. If a person of faith reads the Bible looking for some guidance they will find it and very clearly. The first reads the words of men, the second reads the word of God.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='04 October 2009 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1254694696' post='1977592']
If an atheist were to open the Bible and read, they would be reading an ordinary book.
[/quote]

If an atheist were to read the holy Scriptures, he would be reading the word of God, whether he believed it or not.

[mortify]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='04 October 2009 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1254693771' post='1977575']
How do Pagans treat their myths? If you are referring to my not taking them as truth absolutism in their literal form. No I don't! There are many contradictions in the Bible. Here we have Luke relating the story of a man who was saved in the final moments of his life apparently by faith alone. But Mark doesn't! Therefore somebody is wrong even if only by omission. If Mark was correct then Luke was inspired to include a story which was a parable, but this does not reduce it's importance. It would still be the infallible word of God. Furthermore if you look on the web you will see that although it appears that the thief was saved by faith alone some argue that since he knew who Jesus was he may well have been baptised a Christian! I frequently challenge scripture on forums because I would not see these differing aspects by just reading the Bible. There are many very learned people who write on this phorum and I love challenging them to see what their response may be. Since I myself have little education and have a short attention span I can learn much more by this method.
[/quote]

Do you believe Jesus physically resurrected from the dead?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='05 October 2009 - 09:20 AM' timestamp='1254694844' post='1977597']
If an atheist were to read the holy Scriptures, he would be reading the [s]word of God[/s] Holy Scriptures whether he believed it or not.
[/quote]

You are looking at things purely in white! You are not seeing black and shades of grey. Would God speak to somebody who denies him? Answer:-occasionally God would invite the person to himself, but mostly he would not speak to them. The only time the Bible is the word of God is when the Bible(God) is speaking to a person. While it lays unused on a table it is just a Book but has written in it Holy Scriptures which God uses to speak to people who are searching. If it were the word of God to all readers there would not be debates and questioning about it of which there is an infinite number on the Web. The example of the thief is one of them.

[quote name='mortify' date='05 October 2009 - 09:24 AM' timestamp='1254695098' post='1977599']
Do you believe Jesus physically resurrected from the dead?
[/quote]
Jesus let Thomas feel his wound, which proved his risen physical body, but he also entered the room through a locked door. So like in Transubstantiation he was more than physical. He was the indestructible body free of disease suffering and death which would be fit for eternal life. If you behave yourself he will do the same for you.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Mark of the Cross

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='mortify' date='04 October 2009 - 12:32 AM' timestamp='1254630776' post='1977142']
Where is the apparent contradiction?
[/quote]

if you dont see it, you're not lookin. "no one at all can be saved" "every human person [must be subject to the roman pontiff".
sure, it's plausible that they weren't intending to be strictly literal with these statements. they didnt expound, i admit. but it looks like they intended to be strict, ie the apparent contradiction. you cannot deny this, it's a brute fact. and there's traditionalists and sedevacantists etc who belieed it, a lot of conservativ ecatholics say it's true or want to believe it etc, or say it's th way things are etc. indicating that's what was intended. sure it's plausible they were wrong, but that seems convenient.
sure, you could say that it's just a way of speaking not to be taken literally, and throw all those vatican II quotes about the proper way of understanding it-- but this appears to be a cop out, at least it looks like it literally.
if you dont think so, obviously it's your perogative. i think you're stickin your head in the sand though, if that's the case, cause it looks like the middle ages popes agreed strictly. there's nothing from then to say otherwise, either.

so dont just ask the question, as most do here "where's the contradiction?", if you know all the stuff i just said. just let it be. you're just bein stubborn if you already knew everything i said above, let us agree to disagree. if you didn't already know the above stuff, you just ain't lookin or aint readin or cant unerstand etc. sorry, but either option doesn't fare well for ya.
i know im being very forward, not beatin around the bush. but that's exactly what catholics do with this issue, cause they dont want to deal with it. so if the options are't lookin good for ya, im gonna give ya the benefit of the doubt, and say it's not that you dont know, but that you're just bein difficult andor assuming just because i disagree with ya you have to act as if it's so clear. you are bringin this attitude upon yourself.

Edited October 5, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='04 October 2009 - 08:02 PM' timestamp='1254700920' post='1977724']
i know im being very forward, not beatin around the bush. but that's exactly what catholics do with this issue, cause they dont want to deal with it. so if the options are't lookin good for ya, im gonna give ya the benefit of the doubt, and say it's not that you dont know, but that you're just bein difficult andor assuming just because i disagree with ya you have to act as if it's so clear. you are bringin this attitude upon yourself.
[/quote]

The reason I don't see a contradiction is becaus to be guilty of anything you must have knowledge that it's wrong, and then freely will to commit the wrong. If someone is ignorant of the Gospel and unware the Church even exists, they can't be held accountable for not knowing the Gospel or not being a member of the Church, because they don't even have the capability to desire it. They can only possess an implicit desire, and it's possible that this be sufficient to grant them membership into the Mystical Body of Christ, while remaining outside the Visible Body.

The Papal statements you quoted are directed to those who are aware of the Gospel, aware of the Church's existence, and willing reject it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

random interesting bit on the "pope is God" point that was touched upon


[quote]If there is one thing, one argument that some anti-Catholics use that would irk me, it's their trying to prove the "Pope is God" by showing various quotes from (supposedly) Catholic works which show a Pope or a Cleric proclaiming that the Pope is equivalent to and is God Himself under the flesh.I know a few will say, "Come on, these guys have their proof and even provide citations for them! How can you refute these?"

I answer that: While these people may have done a commendable job of trying to provide citations for a statement (a plus point in my book), providing citations is not enough in many cases. I believe that one must also show the statement in question in context (cherry-picking one phrase and interpreting it removed from its context is just intolerable, IMHO), show other related works (if possible) that corroborate the statement, and always provide correct citations.If the Church teaches that the Pope is God in human form, then why doesn't a statement similar to that one appear in the Catechism, where just about all things that Catholics believe in are written? And be better sure that if there is any evidence to the contrary, that it is published in the official Catechism and not in local ones.

Now, let's first adress three of these supposed 'quotes', shall we?



1.) These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: "To believethat our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is tobe deemed heretical."Father A. Pereira says: "It is quite certain that Popes have neverapproved or rejected this title 'Lord God the Pope,' for the passage in thegloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in1580 by Gregory XIII."

Quite believable, this one, isn't it? Yet the problem with this quote is:

1.) Pope Gregory XIII's Canon Law was published in 1582, not 1580 (though this is just a minor quibble).

2.) António Pereira de Figueiredo (1761-1797) was a priest in Lisbon who published many works, including a translation of the Bible and a work entitled Tentativa Theologica (first published in 1766; it is in this work where this quote supposedly appears), in which he attacked the Papal predominancy in Portugal. The work was then translated in Latin, Spanish and Italian and sparked a controversy; eventually because of this, Pereira was excommunicated.

There is some information about Pereira in this (Spanish) work entitled Historia de los Heterodoxos Españoles (History of heterodox Spaniards?) VII, chapter 2. If someone knows Spanish and can translate this chapter for me, please contact me or post in the comment box.

3.) All that Fr. Pereira he says is that the passage in the gloss referred to (in other words, the passage that is referred to in the gloss) appears in the Canon Law edition. He does not say that the gloss itself appears in this edition of the Canon Law (and it doesn't). So, suppose someone were to write a false statement in relation to another written work anywhere, would that affect the truth or otherwise the referenced written work itself?

Now, let's move on:


2.) "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh."-Catholic National, July 1895
Frs. Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty already answered this question in volume 2 of their Radio Replies (which were actually transcripts of a 1930's radio program hosted by them), so I would defer to them here:


2-310. Pope Pius X made the blasphemous claim that he was "Jesus Christ hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks."

REPLY: A Protestant paper, the "Church Review," in England, October 3, 1895, charges Cardinal Sarto, Archbishop of Venice, with having uttered those words at Venice. Cardinal Sarto was elected Pope in 1903. But as soon as the charge was made in 1895 that Cardinal Sarto had said those words, inquiries were sent from England to Venice, and Cardinal Sarto produced the manuscript of his discourse. And this is what he actually did say:"The Pope REPRESENTS Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore is a loving father. The life of the Pope is a holocaust of love for the human family. His word is love; love, his weapon; love, the answer he gives to all who hate him; love, his flag, that is, the Cross, which signed the greatest triumph on Earth and in Heaven."

1.) The quote is said to have appeared from an English Protestant publication (October 3, 1895), not a Catholic one. As an aside, that quote had also appeared earlier from another Protestant magazine entitled Evangelical Christendom in January 1 of that year.

2.) The actual words of Cardinal Sarto (later Pope Pius X; he only became Pope in 1903) says that the Pope represents Jesus Christ, not that he is Jesus Christ, as this misquote (and those who use them) loves to say.

3.) I haven't been able to find anything about Catholic National. There is however, a Catholic publication which have the names National Catholic Register which is the oldest Catholic newspaper in the United States; however, this publication was begun in 1927.
Can someone at least show me proof that there was a 19th-century publication entitled Catholic National, and that the quote appeared in there?



3.) "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty"-Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894
This one is a classic case of "cherry-picking a quote out of context." The Encyclical mentioned here is Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, which called for the reunion of Eastern and Western churches into the "Unity of the Faith". What then, does the actual Encyclical say?


...A great deal, however, has been wanting to the entire fulness of that consolation. Amidst these very manifestations of public joy and reverence Our thoughts went out towards the immense multitude of those who are strangers to the gladness that filled all Catholic hearts: some because they lie in absolute ignorance of the Gospel; others because they dissent from the Catholic belief, though they bear the same name of Christians. This thought has been, and is, a source of deep concern to Us; for it is impossible to think of such a large portion of mankind deviating, as it were, from the right path, as they move away from Us, and not experience a sentiment of innermost grief.But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, who when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest prayer, that His disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: "I pray...that they all may be one, as thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us."And as this divine prayer and supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the unity of divine faith.

Pressed on to Our intent by charity, that hastens fastest there where the need is greatest, We direct Our first thoughts to those most unfortunate of all nations who have never received the light of the Gospel, or who, after having possessed it, have lost it through neglect or the vicissitudes of time: hence do they ignore God, and live in the depths of error. Now, as all salvation comes from Jesus Christ--for there is no other name under Heaven given to men whereby we must be saved--Our ardent desire is that the most holy name of Jesus should rapidly pervade and fill every land.

1.) If the Pope identifies himself as God, then why does he refer to the Lord Jesus as "Our Redeemer and Master?" Surely God cannot have a master as that would imply that there is someone superior to him.

2.) The phrase is interpreted in the wrong sense by many here. In the Catholic point of view, "we hold upon this Earth the place of God" makes perfect sense, as Catholics believe that the Pope is the Vicar (i.e. Representative) of Christ. What does a representative do? He "holds the place" of the person he represents! Far from claiming that he is God in the flesh, Pope Leo is just reaffirming his position as Christ's representative (like a Prime Minister) on Earth.


4.) Pope Nicholas I declared that "the appellation of God had beenconfirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who being God, cannot be judged by man." (Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can 7 Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para)
This is quite similar to an argument Frs. Rumble and Carty answered:


2-311. Pope Nicholas I said that the Pope, being God, is judged by no man.

REPLY: Never did Pope Nicholas I. say that the Pope is God. What he does say is this:"Since those in higher authority are not judged by inferiors, it is evident that the Apostolic See, than which no earthly authority is higher, is judged by none."And that is perfectly sound reasoning. Even in civil law, the king is "above the law," and not subject to his own laws. Hence the legal axiom, "The king can do no wrong." Italy itself has acknowledged the justice of the Pope's claim to be independent of all civil jurisdiction, and subject to no earthly authorities.

If I might add, the citation "Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can 7 Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para" is obscure. I checked his opera omnia (whole works) here (based on Migne's Patrologia Latina) and found no document similar to the one above.[/quote]