The Church throughout history and time moves from uncertainty to certainty regarding Truth. This is becasue the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all Truth.
So, however did the church survive until the RCC came into existence?
We have everything we need to know about salvation right in the Bible. No need for RCC add-ons that came centuries later. The HS didn't inspire the eyewitnesses or their close associates to write about these Marian dogmas... was the HS being forgetful?
Thus, there was a time in history when a Catholic could remain in good standing--and deny the IC of Mary, or the Assumption of Mary.
That is because it is nowhere taught in Scripture.
There was a time in history when a Catholic could assert that there are less than 7 Sacraments or more than 7 Sacraments. There was a time in history when a Catholic could deny the infallibility of the pope or the universal supreme jurisdiction of the pope. There was a time in history when a council could be called by someone other than the pope.
Yeah, there was a time in the history of the early church when no one was taught the heresies that the RCC teaches its constituents now. The church managed to survive and people managed to be saved without them.
Once the Church solemnly defines a doctrine, Catholics are no longer free to have their own opinions.
Yeah, they have to put their brains in a box, lock it, and throw away the key and blindly follow what their Magisterium teaches instead of "searching the Scriptures" as the Bereans did, to see if what they are being taught is the truth. They aren't as 'noble" as the Bereans were.
Thus, once the IC was defined, Rome spoke, the matter is closed.
yeah, for Roman Catholics and the EO, if I remember right. Not for the rest of Christendom, who know better, since it is nowhere taught in Scripture. The HS forgot to inspire the eye witnesses of Jesus Christ and/or their close associates to include it in the Gospels, or in the epistles the apostles wrote....right? How remiss of Him....
Catholics are no longer free to deny the IC. Once the Assumption was defined, Catholics were no longer free to deny the Assumption. Once the infallibility of the pope was defined Catholics were no longer free to deny the infallibility of the pope.
Goodness, however did the early Christians survive before these things were taught, since they are nowhere taught in the Bible? HowEVER were they saved without them...horrors!
So the answer to your question is: in the absence of clear teaching of the Church, directive or solemn definition, Catholics are free to debate doctrines. Once the Church acts in an official capacity, the issue is no longer free for debate or denial.
Meaning, Catholics are not encouraged to think for themselves and search the Scriptures on their own, to see if what the Magisterium taught them is the truth. Nope, just blindly go along with it....discernment be darned...
Examples of doctrines Catholics remain free to debate would be the doctrine of Limbo. The Church has never condemned the doctrine, but the Church has not officially adopted the doctrine. Catholics are free to form their own opinions on the doctrine. Most reject the doctrine. If the Church ever solemnly defines the question one way or the other, Catholics would be obliged to adopt that position.
Yep. More important to believe the Church than the Bible.
Another example is the death penalty. Prior to Pope Francis, Catholics were free to support the death penalty, despite the fact that the bishops tended not to. Pope Francis (I think stupidly) changed Church teaching on the death penalty and Catholics are no longer free to support its use.
So, Francis is teaching error, eh?
The Church has not always formally and officially professed belief in the Marian dogmas, a celibate priesthood, purgatory, etc.
Oh, do tell? But it still teaches those things--doesn't it?
Saying the Church has not always formally and officially professed belief in a doctrine is not the same thing as saying the Church invented the doctrine or never believed the doctrine.
But in your church's case, it did invent Papal infallibility; Mary's IC, PV, and co-mediatrix and Queen of Heaven status....
The full equality of Christ with the Father was not formally and officially defined until 325AD. Does this mean the Church invented the Trinity in 325?
No, but the concept of the Triune Godhead is strongly implied in the Bible, though not labeled. The same cannot be said for the aberrant Catholic dogmas.
Again, your typical Protestant fundamentalist false dichotomy. What would you people do without them?
No false dichotomy. IF the early Christians were saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus our Lord, then they didn't need Marian doctrines, papal infallibility, being subject to the Pope is necessary for salvation, etc....did they?
We do not "add" works to Faith Bonnie. Works are part and parcel of Faith. Faith is a gift from God--hence, when God sees our Faith, He sees Christ. Works that are the product of Faith----are done in Christ, thus when God sees our works done in Faith, He sees one and the same Christ.
yes, your church DOES add works as to what saves us! Once a person comes to faith in Christ, his or her good works help to increase their salvation and keep them saved. That is what I have read in your CCC. I agree that good works are the outcome of a true faith, but they do not help save us. Jesus saves--period.
It is not either or, but both AND.
But you are ignoring James who explicitly says we are NOT saved by Faith alone but by works!
I am ignoring nothing, but Catholics ignore what James writes
in context. And what he wrote must be taken into context with what Paul has written so extensively about salvation by grace through faith and NOT by works. Theo1689 did a very thorough commentary on James 2:24 and what he really is talking about. James isn't talking about faith vs. works, but a living faith vs. a dead faith:
The whole claim by the faith alone is exaggerated. The only time I have seen any explanation--is just what you and Theo have posted here--nothing. Let the record show that this poster thinks the following comprehensive exegesis is "nothing": We've addressed this SO many times for you...
forums.carm.org
Remember that justified can have two meanings--one means declared "not guilty" and righteous, but the other is "vindicated/proven." As when Jesus said that "wisdom is justified by her works" (paraphrasing). Here Jesus means "proven" or "vindicated." That is also what James means in context.
Catholics are too ready to isolate certain passages from James, while ignoring the others IN CONTEXT.
So, once again, you are demonstrating the knee-jerk reaction to salvation by grace through faith in Christ Jesus our Lord AND NOT BY WORKS by quoting James 2:24. Without realizing what James means in context..