Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 what are you quoting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 lets just stay away from the CCC since its riddled with post-concliar errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 why does it matter what he's quoting? read it for the substance! for goodness sake man, apply your God-given intellect! the Church doesn't want drones! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 i thought we were not going into relegious freedom 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 23 2005, 01:12 PM']i thought we were not going into relegious freedom [right][snapback]695761[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You werent, but you brought it up again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 [It is an error to say that] "in this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever." - Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Error #77, Dec. 8, 1864. "They do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls...namely that ‘liberty of conscience and of worship is a right proper to every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society.’ " - Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, #3, Dec. 8, 1864. "Men who really believe in God must... understand that differing modes of worship... cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God." - Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, #31, Nov. 1, 1885. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 okay... so show what contradicts that... I know you think it's obvious... but humor me. and, are you going to admit you agree with those paragraphs of the CCC based on inculpable ignoracne, even if you have a slightly stricter interpretation of them than many Catholics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 I don't have time to get into all of this today, but for now, suffice it to say that I for one will follow the Church. That means that I will follow His Holiness Pope John Paul II and His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. I will follow the teachings of the Church as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 1992. This is what Christ commanded us to do. It is quite a claim to say that the Catechism is "riddled with errors." Personally, although I am not a moderator of this site, I would not allow such comments to be posted on my website. They cause scandal to, and confuse, otherwise faithful Catholics who may not be as learned in their faith, they promote disunity, and they have the potential of leading Catholics away from the Church. EENS, let me offer a quick lesson in logic. The opposite of P is "not P." You seem to be claiming that the opposite of P is Q. in all seriousness, you are the one who is in error, not the Catechism and certainly not the Pope and Magisterium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 [quote]846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 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.336 847 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.337 848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338[/quote] and [quote]27 Q: Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church? A: No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church. 28 Q: How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved? A: The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church. 29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation [/quote] both say essentially the same thing with different terminology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 i understand that thats why i agree with it.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 23 2005, 05:10 PM']i understand that thats why i agree with it.............. [right][snapback]696097[/snapback][/right] [/quote] speaking of: [quote name='jasJis quoting the CCC']846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 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.336 847 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.337 848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338[/quote] but earlier you say: [quote name='EENS']is that the 1992 catechisM? i do not accpet paragraph 847 sorry.[/quote] So which is it? Sam....Sam....Sam....you have contradicted yourself again. So, you agree with CCC 847, but also disagree with CCC 847? Honestly, I don't think that you know what you are talking about. I think that you are simply parroting the schismatic view. It is not becoming. It is not intellectually honest and it makes you look foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 i look foolish already so thats not really an issue. basically i don't care about the CCC i accept ZERO of it. it is full of errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 23 2005, 10:07 PM']i look foolish already so thats not really an issue. basically i don't care about the CCC i accept ZERO of it. it is full of errors. [right][snapback]696627[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Because at the age of 14, you have knowledge and training that is far above the Popes, and you are able to make this judgement? And I am quite sure you have read the entire thing, word for word, and compared it to every single Vatican II document, and then in turn, compared that to every document from every previous council. I mean, I must assume that since you clearly know that your judgement of the CCC is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 And as far as I am concerned, you are in schism as well. Deny it at will, but the evidence speaks for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 i am not in schism the word anathema is not in V2 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