jmjtina Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 I always learn something new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 to give any sacrement to members of other churches was considered a mortal sin in 1917. so don't tell me post- vatican II church changed the idea of mortal sin. and it denies the Dogma of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus don't have to be a canon lawyer to know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 22 2005, 07:32 PM']to give any sacrement to members of other churches was considered a mortal sin in 1917. so don't tell me post- vatican II church changed the idea of mortal sin. and it denies the Dogma of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus don't have to be a canon lawyer to know that. [right][snapback]694860[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Did you read the entire thread? How do you refute or address the answers? How likely do you think it is that Ratzinger committed a mortal sin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 22 2005, 08:32 PM']to give any sacrement to members of other churches was considered a mortal sin in 1917. so don't tell me post- vatican II church changed the idea of mortal sin. and it denies the Dogma of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus don't have to be a canon lawyer to know that. [right][snapback]694860[/snapback][/right] [/quote] There is development of the teaching. The idea of "no salvation outside the Church" has not changed, although it has been reformulated into a positive statement. Now, your understanding of the CIC is limited, so I will give you a pass, but seriously, you are about to look really foolish......think very carefully about you answer jasJis. I have posted the current teaching and the current law on the matter. This is what the Church holds to be true. That which you posted has been abrogated. That is binding. You must accept that. It holds the force of law within the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 (edited) [quote]It is the sole judgment of the compitent authority. If then Cardinal Ratzinger chose to give Holy Communion to a non-Catholic, then the conditions must have been met. [/quote] that is ubsurd. Just because he is a cardinal dosen't mean he is always correct when he makes descisions. are you going to follow Benedict blindly! JP2 kissed the Koran and he was the Pope! [quote]Did you read the entire thread? How do you refute or address the answers? How likely do you think it is that Ratzinger committed a mortal sin?[/quote] i read the entire thread. When a Canon from the Code of canon law denies a Dogma it must be opposed. Hmmmmmmmmm just because you are a Cardinal dosen't mean you can't comitte a sin. i don't understand why you psudeo-Catholics hold the hierarchy in such esteem. they are human and fallen too. they commite sins as well. Edited August 23, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 22 2005, 09:42 PM']i don't understand why you psudeo-Catholics hold the hierarchy in such esteem. they are human and fallen too. they commite sins as well. [right][snapback]695030[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You wonder why you are phishy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 im not saying all Of you are psudeo-Catholics... just the ones who accept Canon 844, §4 in the 1983 code of canon law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 22 2005, 09:42 PM']JP2 kissed the Koran and he was the Pope! [right][snapback]695030[/snapback][/right] [/quote] In fact, the Koran was given to the Pope as a gift. In the culture of which he was visiting, a gift is acknowledged by kissing it as a sign of respect to the person who gave it. There was no further philosophical or theological point intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 22 2005, 09:52 PM']im not saying all Of you are psudeo-Catholics... just the ones who accept Canon 844, §4 in the 1983 code of canon law. [right][snapback]695040[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well, then all of us faithful catholic's here on phatmass are "psudeo-Catholics" in your eyes then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 22 2005, 10:52 PM']im not saying all Of you are psudeo-Catholics... just the ones who accept Canon 844, §4 in the 1983 code of canon law. [right][snapback]695040[/snapback][/right] [/quote] And this is why you are phishy..... The 1983 CIC has force of law, within the Church. The 1917 CIC does not. If you do not accept the 1983 CIC, you deny an aspect of the Church. [quote name='Can. 6'] §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: 1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917; 2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws; 3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code; 4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders. §2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.[/quote] [quote name='Can. 20'] A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise.[/quote] Well, Sam......I suggest that you start looking to what the Church actually teaches and not what YOU want it to teach. Here is what it specifically teaches regarding previous Codes and previous laws. While one does not need to be a canon lawyer, it does help to know just what one is talking about. I suggest that you study more.....you are making errors all over the place.....you just don't know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 [quote]There is development of the teaching. The idea of "no salvation outside the Church" has not changed, although it has been reformulated into a positive statement.[/quote] what do you mean by that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 22 2005, 10:52 PM']im not saying all Of you are psudeo-Catholics... just the ones who accept Canon 844, §4 in the 1983 code of canon law. [right][snapback]695040[/snapback][/right] [/quote] So, I am a pseudo-Catholic, huh? Well, Sam, I suggest that you retract this statement. I gave you a pass earlier, but I am losing my patience with your obvious pride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 22 2005, 11:05 PM']what do you mean by that? [right][snapback]695052[/snapback][/right] [/quote] [quote name='CCC 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: 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.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 (edited) thought that was from the Code of Canon law but it wasn't........ i don't like the 1992 Catechism its all about Vatican II. but i don't see anything praticuarly wrong with that paragraph. Edited August 23, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 OK. Could you guys please post exactly what Canons 844 and 846 say for those of us who are interested yet have no copy of the CIC? Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now