Reconstruction Of

[dairygirl4u2c]

i remember i used to play these games a lot when ironmonk was a regular here when i was new to phatmass.

can anyone reconstruct my arguments for why i think the cc contradicts itself regarding "no salvation outside the CC". you can then feel free to refute it if you wanna try.

i'm just curious to see who understands and how well they understand, and this is a good test to see how.

[goldenchild17]

mmm this should be fun. I'll be reading this one.

[Aloysius]

I love this game. Sometimes it scares me just how strong my arguments can be against Catholicism; of course, Aquinas made some good arguments against Catholicism too in his objections in the Summa. Let's see if I can give this one the ol' college try...

Advocatus Diaboli

The crux of the argument is that those who taught Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus in the past did not have any exceptions whatsoever in mind; and the Definition of Infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council explicitly says that it is the intention of the Fathers of a Council or the Pope which expresses infallible doctrine. Therefore, if the popes and councils of the past intended to say that all non-Christians and all non-Catholics were automatically without question or exception damned to hell, then we ought to hold that as infallible; and, therefore, the great hoops which we jump through to squeeze in exceptions were not justified by our own definition of infallibility. Development of doctrine cannot contradict the previous intentions of infallible doctrine.

Advocatus Dei et Ecclesia Dei

The statements of the past popes and councils were infallible in regards to their intention, to the mind of the popes who made the statements. This is true as Vatican I's definition of infallibility teaches us. What this does not mean, however, is that the doctrine must thereby exclude all things which the pope does not intend. A pope, in declaring that no one who is not subject to rule by the Roman Pontiff may acheive salvation, may really see himself as saying that all non-Catholics are damned to hell. But his intention is to declare damned those who sin against his office. That he imagines that all non-Catholics directly sin against his office is not guarded by infallibility; such a thing would be a temporal judgement and he does not have the protection of infalliblily regarding his temporal judgements. This does not, therefore, raise itself to the level of his intention in teaching the doctrine. The doctrine intends to condemn those who sin against his office; he does not need to believe or intend to teach that exceptions can exist for a later development to establish such exceptions as theoretical possibilities.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1186947' date='Feb 6 2007, 10:54 PM']
I love this game. Sometimes it scares me just how strong my arguments can be against Catholicism; of course, Aquinas made some good arguments against Catholicism too in his objections in the Summa.
[/quote]

I've always thought the best way to refute a errant position is to understand it to it's fullest and be able to argue for it's validity as far as the argument can go.

[Paddington]

I don't have much to say.

BUT can somebody perhaps go on and on about Baptism in the name of the Trinity? It is popular to do outside the Church after all.

ALSO it is worth something when somebody "submits" to the pope as much as they would "submit" to some guy walking down the street, if it is meant that there is basic human love and open-mindedness to what they say and ask of others.
If a person would let the pope use their bathroom, it could mean that they would do a lot else for the pope too.
If a person (who might be biased against the pope) would listen to him anyways if asked nicely for a chance to explain Catholicism, then that would be meaningful too.
This goes along with "it's the thought that counts" and "invincible ignorance."

This issue is pretty tough.

Edited February 7, 2007 by Paddington