Ccc Paragraph 841 (re Muslims)

[Don John of Austria]

Ironmonk I do think that the Church is capable of teaching things that are incorrect about Faith and Morals, if it was not possable there would be no need for organs of Infallability. Remember the Ordinary Magisterium( ie the large majority of Bishops) supported Arius before Nicea It was only through the Holy Spirit that the Correct and Holy veiw of the Pope and other Champions of Christ divinity won. I am not saying that the Church is wrong on this point, as I think the Actual Church teaching is not clear in the Catachism. I do think that this is open for debate as I really do not believe it meets any of the criteria for Infallability nor has it been declared of limits for discussion like Female Ordnation has been.

Also I disagree with you on the War thing I think it is defenintly within Faith and Morals---Killing people is a moral issue.

"Not the people, but the teachings.... there is a difference"

I would say not the people, but the faith,and yes there is a differance . However if it had ment that every Muslim in the World would have been killed the Church would not have flinched a bit. Study the History of the Middle ages a bit more Closely particularly Spain and you will see why.

[Don John of Austria]

Oh and you still haven't answered my question.

[Don John of Austria]

"

The church is ever-young and there's no need to rely exclusively on her past documents and disciplines as you seem to do"

The Church IS HER TRADITION...SHE IS HER PAST DOCUMENTS< SHE IS HER PAST. Nothing more can be said.

[cmotherofpirl]

Ironmonk I do think that the Church is capable of teaching things that are incorrect about Faith and Morals, if it was not possable there would be no need for organs of Infallability. Remember the Ordinary Magisterium( ie the large majority of Bishops) supported  Arius before Nicea It was only through the Holy Spirit that the Correct and Holy veiw of the Pope and other Champions of Christ divinity won. I am not saying that the Church is wrong on this point, as I think the Actual Church teaching is not clear in the Catachism. I do think that this is open for debate as I really do not believe it meets any of the criteria for Infallability nor has it been declared of limits for discussion like Female Ordnation has been.

Also I disagree with you on the War thing I think it is defenintly within Faith and Morals---Killing people is a moral issue. 

"Not the people, but the teachings.... there is a difference"

I would say not the people, but the faith,and yes there is a differance . However if it had ment that every Muslim in the World would have been killed the Church would not have flinched a bit. Study the History of the Middle ages a bit more Closely particularly Spain and you will see why.

Individual Bishops can be in error. A bishop speaking in union with Rome cannot.

[Chrysologus]

The church is not ONLY her past. Documents from the past are important, but so are modern ones. That's all I'm trying to say.

[cmotherofpirl]

And you are absolutely right.

Dogmas do not change. But doctrine can be developed over time as it is consistantly studied by the Church.We have only been studying it 2000 years.

Give it time. THe Psalms say for God" a thousand years are as a watch in the night."

[Don John of Austria]

"Individual Bishops can be in error. A bishop speaking in union with Rome cannot"

What do you mean by union with Rome?

Cryso--" But the crusades are over now, so I don't think that Catholics have any obligation to think anything particular about them. By their very nature, the crusades can't be considered doctrine, because doctrine is eternal, but the crusades were limited in time. "

The assumption was limited in time, it was an event, it is not an abstract doctrine.

[Don John of Austria]

"Individual Bishops can be in error. A bishop speaking in union with Rome cannot"

What do you mean by union with Rome?

Cryso--" But the crusades are over now, so I don't think that Catholics have any obligation to think anything particular about them. By their very nature, the crusades can't be considered doctrine, because doctrine is eternal, but the crusades were limited in time. "

The assumption was limited in time, it was an event, it is not an abstract doctrine.

[ironmonk]

The crusades had moral justification. The crusades themselves fall under discipline.

The official teachings from the Magisterium will never be wrong.

Individual and groups of bishops can be wrong if they go against the official teaching of the Church... i.e. the Greek Orhodox bishops when they split off from Rome.

The Catechism, is the official teachings of the Catholic Church. Nothing is in error withing the Catechism.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[dabukthumpa]

Chrysologus - Your response to my input into the disscussion is weak. Is that all you have to say - is that the site I used has info by Father Feeney - and therefore the citing of The Council of Florence has no value?

My addition to the argument at hand poses some very vital questions concerning how we are to relate to those of Non - Christian religions.

I simply used the cite because it gives a precise translation of the Bull from the Council of Florence concerning The Churchs' believe in the Trinity, God, The HOly Spirit, Jesus, and Salvation - all of which at the Council of Florence was Dogmatically defined! I have no recouse to Father Feeney - nor to any Neo-Traditional sect. I hope you weren't implying I did.

Secondly - no one on this cite - had anything to say to the questions posed - rather I got the impression that it was disregarded by the choice of the website I chose to give some of my information.

Whether you people like it or not - The Council of Florence Defined some things infallibly that at times do not necessarily coincide with what some of you claim is legitimate teaching concerning Salvation. For instance - Show me where the Church (meaning the Magisterium - not a few minority of Church Fathers) Declare and define - or teach that "Baptism by Desire is Church Doctrine" You can't -

Secondly- show me where The Church teaches that by just following your conscience the best that you can will guarentee you salvation! Rather - We are taught to have a well informed conscience - that to seek the Truth and adhere to it is the norm - St. Paul in His epistles warns us that we have no excuse for not coming to the correct understanding of God - and Salvation (Romans 1:18-32 & Chapter 2) First He let's us know that just by Creation we can come to know God (VAtican I taught Infallibly - that man on his own can come to the understanding tha God exists) but that ultimatly in Jesus Christ - and in Him alone - can one come to Salvation! Vatican I also taught infallibly - (but it is only through Jesus Christ and the Grace he offers, and the means of Salvation offered by the Church can one come into a right relationship with God!) It is not enough just to know that there is a God - and live the best according to your conscience - Otherwise VAtican II would not have stressed so much in Lumen Gentium on the Saving Mission of the Church! The document itself says - "Basing itself on upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. Christ, presents to us in His body, which is the Church, is the ONE MEDIATOR AND THE UNIQUE WAY OF SALVATION. In explicit terms He Himself arrirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the NECSSITY of the Church."

Granted Lumen Gentium does state that "Those also CAN attain to salvation who through no fault of there own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience." But the document does not say you will go to heaven - or you will be saved - it just says what is true - that one can - possibly - if there was never any way for them to come to know Christ - That part is left up to God. However - the Council makes it very clear that this is not enough - to have a good conscience - or to be a good person of another religion - it states - "But often men, decieved by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie..." The document then goes on to state the Churchs SAVING MISSION - why because the Church is necessary for salvation!!! This mission is a Divine one - and mere possibilities for Salvation are not good enough for the ChurcH - it is her mission to incorporate those outside the Church into her bosom- so that they too will have the Faith necessary working throught Works - given by grace for Salvation.

Dominus Vobiscum

[cmotherofpirl]

When the Bishops speak together in union with Rome, they are infallible.

[VeraMaria]

When the Bishops speak together in union with Rome, they are infallible.

Amen! B)

[Chrysologus]

Your response to my input into the disscussion is weak. Is that all you have to say - is that the site I used has info by Father Feeney - and therefore the citing of The Council of Florence has no value?

I responded by giving my general impression of traditionalism, which as far as I can tell, is what you're espousing. I said nothing of the Council of Florence at all. I'll let the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpret that council instead.

I have no recouse to Father Feeney - nor to any Neo-Traditional sect. I hope you weren't implying I did.

I don't need to imply that you have recourse to Fr. Feeney or radical traditionalism because you implied that yourself by linking to a pro-Feeney, radical tradiionalist website. If you don't agree with those things, don't post links from their sites without a disclaimer.

Show me where the Church (meaning the Magisterium - not a few minority of Church Fathers) Declare and define - or teach that "Baptism by Desire is Church Doctrine" You can't

Do you decide how many church fathers need to speak about something for the modern church to rely on it? There are plenty of church doctrines with support from only a few quotes from church fathers. In any case, http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_..._of_Baptism.asp has several quotes from church fathers teaching baptism of desire and baptism of blood. Does the church teach baptism of desire? YES! It's in the Catechism (paragraphs 1257-1261: The Necessity of Baptism, see also paragraphs 846-848: "Outside the Church there is no salvation") and the church teaches everything in the Catechism--the Catechism is by definition the church's instruction. Has the church ever defined it as dogma? No, the church has hardly declared anything as dogma, but non-dogmatic doctrine is no less binding on the Catholic conscience.

But the document does not say you will go to heaven - or you will be saved - it just says what is true - that one can - possibly - if there was never any way for them to come to know Christ - That part is left up to God.

I don't know what you're trying to do here. The council and Catechism both teach that non-Catholis can attain to salvation if they say yes to God's call in their hearts. Yet you seem to be trying to add to this: "But they won't." The point is that God can save anybody. We're bound by the sacraments, not him.

There is nothing to debate here. Read the Catechism. Muslims are part of God's plan of salvation and can be saved. God is good.

[dabukthumpa]

I don't need to imply that you have recourse to Fr. Feeney or radical traditionalism because you implied that yourself by linking to a pro-Feeney, radical tradiionalist website. If you don't agree with those things, don't post links from their sites without a disclaimer.

Answer: It sounds like you have a hard time understanding english.  I made it very clear that I have no recourse to Neo-Traditionalist movements.  I also made it very clear (you can call it a disclaimer if you like) that I used the site merely because it gives a good translations of the Bull from the Council of Florence.  I can not think of any more means to which I can make myself clear.

Does the church teach baptism of desire? YES! It's in the Catechism (paragraphs 1257-1261:

Answer: Again it looks like someone does not know how to read english ( I take it your Catechism is written in english much like mine). I would caution you against making definitive statements regarding Church Doctrine before it is actually doctrine. I will gladly walk through the paragraphs you quoted to me stating that the Church teaches baptism by desire and and show you exactly why the Church does not have a doctrine of baptism by desire.

CCC- 1257 - This paragraph makes it very clear that the Church DOES have a doctrine on the Necessity of Baptism for salvation. It even goes on to say, "The Church does NOT KNOW OF ANY OTHER MEANS OTHER THAN BAPTISM THAT ASSURES ENTRY INTO ETERNAL BEATITUDE; THAT IS WHY SHE TAKES CARE NOT TO NEGLECT THE MISSION SHE HAS RECIEVED FROM THE LORD TO SEE THAT ALL WHO CAN BE BAPTIZED ARE 'BORN OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT'". God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."

Right here the Church makes it very clear that the only doctrine she has that she knows WILL ASSURE ETERNAL SALVATION is THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM - as handed on to us by Jesus Christ. Yes she makes the obvious know that God can be above the Sacraments he gave us - but God assured us Himself that baptism was the proper means! Just because God can do something above the Sacrament does not make it justifiable to IMPLY universal salvation to anyone on the account that they are a good person - The Church believes this which is why the Catechism itself says - the Church "takes great care not to neglect the mission given to her".

Now If you know anything about stating a premise and laying the correct foundation on how to understand the proper context of what is to follow such explicit language as I have stated above - you probably whould have not made such a definitive statement on behalf of the Magisterium of the Church.

CCC 1258 - which you stated to prove that The Church does have a doctrine of "baptism of desire" - actually does not say that at all. I can hardly believe you would miss something so blatent - especially after paragraph 1257! CCC 1258 states "The Church has always held the firm CONVICTION that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having recieved baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This baptism of blood, like the desire for baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

Now this may seem to imply what you were stating, but it does not - The Catechism does not use language such as - "It is the Church's belief" or "The Church has always held as an article of faith" that.... NO - instead the Catechism states exactly what it means, that this is nothing more that a CONVICTION that the Church has had. (notice how the Catechism makes no direct quotes in this or the next paragraph - concerning this Conviction - why? because this is simply that a conviction - not establishd Church doctrine - this conviction has no real driving force in Scripture or in the Authentic Tradition of the Church! If it did the Catechism would site it - just like it does every other important matter concering what we are absolutely bound to belief as a faithful Catholic.

Let me give you an example: The Church has many convictions regarding certain things - that pertain to our faith. Such as Apparitions of Mary : The Church is very convicted that Our Blessed Mother Appeared in Fatima! (otherwise she would not have a particular feast day for such an event in Her Liturgical Calander!) But this Conviction is not Church Doctrine - No actually I do not even have to belive that such an event happened in order to be a good standing and faithful Catholic. The Church has strong conviction in the promises given to us by wearing the brown scapular - Yet I do not have to believe in such things nor wear a brown scapular in order to be a good Catholic! There is no Doctrine of Our Lady of Fatima - or of the Brown Scapular. Just like there is no definitive doctine of the "baptism of desire" - This is simply a Theological conviction that the Church "seems" to Hold. There is a huge difference between what the Church teaches as doctrine and what she professes as a Conviction!

At one time the Conviction of the Church was that there was such a place as Limbo. Now I would bet you will have a hard time finding any Catholic who actually belives in limbo. My point taken.

I don't know what you're trying to do here. The council and Catechism both teach that non-Catholis can attain to salvation if they say yes to God's call in their hearts. Yet you seem to be trying to add to this: "But they won't." The point is that God can save anybody. We're bound by the sacraments, not him.

There is nothing to debate here. Read the Catechism. Muslims are part of God's plan of salvation and can be saved. God is good.

Answer: How can you not know what I am saying - once again it is in plain english! Muslims are only part of God's plan of salvation in the sense that God desires them to be saved! And as we have seen above - What does the Church teach FOR CERTAIN WILL ASSURE THEM THE GRACE OF SALVATION - THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM!!! The rest as I said is up to God - How you cannot understand that - who knows. But the Church does because it teaches it! It makes it clear that it is not enough to be just a good god-fearing person in your heart and bingo - your saved! That is borderline heresy! To teach such a thing. The Church takes her mission given to her by Christ seriously - and She only teaches for certain that The Sacrament of Baptism is the only means in Which she knows for sure that one is given the grace of salvation.

Dominus Vobiscum.

[Chrysologus]

It sounds like you have a hard time understanding english.

Again it looks like someone does not know how to read english ( I take it your Catechism is written in english much like mine)

Now If you know anything about stating a premise and laying the correct foundation on how to understand the proper context of what is to follow such explicit language as I have stated above - you probably whould have not made such a definitive statement on behalf of the Magisterium of the Church.

How can you not know what I am saying - once again it is in plain english! Muslims are only part of God's plan of salvation in the sense that God desires them to be saved! And as we have seen above - What does the Church teach FOR CERTAIN WILL ASSURE THEM THE GRACE OF SALVATION - THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM!!! The rest as I said is up to God - How you cannot understand that - who knows.

:angry: