Seems like trads have a problem

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Aug 19 2005, 08:56 AM']Why Lester, are you debating Catholics again?
[right][snapback]690244[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Actually, I'm not debating. Just stating the facts of history.

Which Catholicsare we talking about anyway? I didn't catch the names.

I do hope that recounting Church history isn't upsetting to the orthodox.

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

But I'm getting confused.

Which "party line" is it being claimed is "orthodox"?

The teaching that each and every person must be subject to the Roman Pontiff and partake of the sacramental life of the Church to be saved, ie. only Catholics in heaven. (Unum Sanctum, Council of Florence).?

Or

Each individual acting in accordance with his conscience can achieve salvation (Vatican II)?

LittleLes

[Aloysius]

I believe Pope Eugene's Bull of Union with the Copts. you guys ever read the full text of it? it's found in session 11 of the Council of Florence. He's specifying what they [the copts] must believe in order to be unified to the Church.

this statement wasn't made in a vaccuum. it was made in a letter sent to the Coptic Church (its original languages are both Latin and Coptic).

anyway, it is infallibly correct and has never been denied. the Holy Catholic Church still firmly believes this, that only in the Church resides the salvitic grace necessary for salvation. That rejecting the Church is a damnable mortal sin.

The Church continues to believe that the only way to hell is 1) original sin or 2) mortal and and that mortal sin must have three things to make it mortal 1)grave matter 2) full consent of the will and 3) full knowledge (culpable ignorance counts for this requirement)

Les, that's not what Vatican II said. You must understand Vatican II in context. one of the first things Vatican II did was reaffirm the Council of Trent. Therefore it can be said that everything said at Trent was also said at Vatican II. Vatican II's statements about conscience can only be understood when you understand that even an erring conscience BINDS but it does not always EXCUSE. You can follow your conscience strait into hell. but not following your conscience leads you to hell as well. That's why a conscience must be well-formed. because someone with an erring conscience, if they were to disobey that conscience they would sin and if they were to obey it they also may be culpable of sin.

If you really want to play in the big leagues and discuss supposed contradictions in councils, you better darn well read them. I've read Nicaea I through Vatican II, and it all makes perfect sense. But reading an excerpt here and an excerpt there makes it look contradictory.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 19 2005, 12:48 PM']
The Church continues to believe that the only way to hell is 1) original sin


RESPONSE:

Nope! That claim went out with Augustine. So your really believe that all those babies dying without being baptized go to hell?

Don't you even allow for the Limbo fiction?

Straight to Hell for something they didn't do, eh?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 19 2005, 12:48 PM']
Les, that's not what Vatican II said.  You must understand Vatican II in context.  [/quote]


RESPONSE:

Ah! The apologist's old "context" ploy. Lets see.

Vatican II: . "The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."

Pope Boniface VIII...".Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

(Read: "Absolutely necessary for salvation" for every human being. ie No exceptions allowed).

And you are trying to tell us that both of these statement really are the same if read "in context"?

And you expect someone to believe that?

[Aloysius]

I don't expect you to believe anything. Read all the documents of all the councils and then we'll talk. I cannot talk to someone who merely reads bits and peices.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm"]Nicaea I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm"]Constantinople I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm"]Ephesus[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm"]Chalcedon[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm"]Constantinope II[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm"]Constantinope III[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm"]Nicaea II[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum08.htm"]Constantinople IV[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum09.htm"]Lateran I[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum10.htm"]Lateran II[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum11.htm"]Lateran III[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum12.htm"]Lateran IV[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum13.htm"]Lyons I[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum15.htm"]Council of Vienne[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum16.htm"]Council of Constance[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm"]Council of Basle[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm"]Lateran V[/url]
[url="http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent.html"]Council of Trent[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm"]Vatican I[/url]
[url="http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/index.html"]Vatican II[/url]

the Bull of Union with the Copts (Cantate Domine) was written to the Copts on the occasion of seeking union with them. To be in union with Rome you must understand that only through the Catholic Church does salvation come. That neither jews nor heretics nor pagans nor schismatics have salvation.

meaning the copts were outside of the One True Church where salvation is found and they must enter as a necessity for salvation.

I also believe it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

but I also hold to the traditional understanding that only two things can send someone to hell, original sin and mortal sin. and for something to be a mortal sin three conditions must apply for their culpability. Those popes you're quoting all understood that as well, culpability is not a new concept.

[brendan1104]

LittleLes,

limbo is actually a part of hell.

It's not the hell of the damned,

but it's still part of it.

Research it.

[brendan1104]

of course, there's two limbos:

the limbo where the just waited before Christ.

and the limbo of original sin, etc.

Nicene Creed:

"On the third day he rose again from the dead."

(This might mean mortal death, or it might mean limbo.)

Apostle's Creed:

"He descended into hell"

or "He descended to the dead"

(That means limbo).

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 19 2005, 02:13 PM']
To be in union with Rome you must understand that only through the Catholic Church does salvation come.  That neither jews nor heretics nor pagans nor schismatics have salvation.


I also believe it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

but I also hold to the traditional understanding that only two things can send someone to hell, original sin and mortal sin.[/quote]

RESPONSE:


(1) Are you then mantaining that all Jews, Muslims, nonCatholics, and nonChristians go to hell?

(2) Jews, Muslims, noncatholics, and nonChristians of course are not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

(3) But if only two things send someone to hell and not what Boniface VIII says, you are then disagreeing with Pope Boniface VIII! You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

And you really believe that those unbaptized babies all go to Hell? Not even Libmo? You certainly are being mean to them!

[Aloysius]

Boniface is not saying that anything other than original or mortal sin sends one to hell. In describing a positive affirmation of what is absolutely necessary for salvation, he is defining a form of mortal sin (refusing to be subject to the Roman Pontiff) for which those conditions of mortal sin must be met for one to be culpable and thus damned.

I do not know the salvation of any man. apart from the Holy Catholic Church, none can be saved. if one mortally sins by rejecting the Catholic Church, he will be damned. if he is inculpable for the sin of rejecting the Catholic Church, then talk to God about that, that has been the subject of much speculative theology debate over the centuries. But if he follows the natural law written on all men's hearts and attempts to do the will of God and there is not the mortal sin of rejecting the Church then there is the possibility that God opens to him the treasury of salvtic grace residing alone in the Catholic Church and he may be saved through an imperfect implicit union with the Church.

[thessalonian]

I see Less has hijacked my thread. People don't feed the Lester. Edited August 19, 2005 by thessalonian

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 19 2005, 02:31 PM']Boniface is not saying that anything other than original or mortal sin sends one to hell.  In describing a positive affirmation of what is absolutely necessary for salvation, he is defining a form of mortal sin (refusing to be subject to the Roman Pontiff) for which those conditions of mortal sin must be met for one to be culpable and thus damned.

I[/quote]

RESPONSE:

No. Boniface is saying that it is absolutely essential for salavation that every human being be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Vatican II tells us, for example, that a Jew who lives his life in accordance with what he considers to be true can ,and probably will, be saved.

The plain meaning of Bonfice's word are that the same Jew, who is not subject to the Pope, cannot be saved.

Understand the difference? Mortal sin is not a factor. Subjection to the Pontiff is.

[brendan1104]

I definitely think that anyone who refuses to accept Christ as God, as well as the one true Church, the Catholic Church will not be saved.

Edited August 19, 2005 by brendan1104

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

LittleLes, are you familiar with the entire Unam Sanctum document? Or just the last sentence?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Aug 19 2005, 08:01 PM']LittleLes, are you familiar with the entire Unam Sanctum document?  Or just the last sentence?
[right][snapback]691125[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONE:

Yep; the whole thing and the history. It was one of the ultimate assertions of papal authority. And the last sentence is still on the books.

But Vatican II put it aside as was demonstrated.