I reject the Rcc, its pope, its marian dogmas, its claim to be the one, true church..

[Mysterium Fidei]

Don't waste your time with Mysterium. No matter what you say---he has an answer for it.

@Stella1000 I am not posting my answers to anything. Unlike @romishpopishorganist, who posts his own Hallmark Greeting Card theology, I am just posting examples of magisterium of the Catholic Church, which Catholics are bound to believe.

 

[Mysterium Fidei]

All analogies limp, sir.

And get right my analogy. I did not compare Catholicism (Rolex) to Protestantism (Timex.)

I compared Catholicism (Rolex) to Protestantism (FAKE ROLEX.) Some fakes are better than others, some tell time better than others--but in the end--the fakes only amount to anything because of the original. The real deal--Catholicism is objectively superior than the fakes--Protestantism. The real deal is authenticated and guaranteed to tell you the correct time always. The fakes--not so much.

The point is that the fake Rolex---only has any value at all---if it can be said to have value--because of the real thing.

There is no salvation WITHOUT the Catholic Church. That means---Protestantism is only what it is becasue we are who we are. If we go--they go. They cannot stand independently.

The Dei fide dogma, proclaimed many times throughout Church history, is that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Where even in your Vatican II ecclesiology does it state that there is no salvation without the Catholic Church? Is that statment found in either Unitatis Redintegratio or Lumen Gentium, or is this just more of your made up "theology"?

 

[Stella1000]

Since you are quoting the Summa, St. Thomas Aquinas also says that "invincible ignorance is a punishment for sin.” (De Infid. q. x., art. 1.) It is, then, a curse, not a blessing or a means of salvation.

I've made a good search of the Summa for that statement and can't find it anywhere. Can you quote the whole verse it was contained in so I can see the context. What I found concerning invincible ignorance in the Summa was the opposite of that statement.

 

[Kirby]

I've made a good search of the Summa for that statement and can't find it anywhere. Can you quote the whole verse it was contained in so I can see the context. What I found concerning invincible ignorance in the Summa was the opposite of that statement.

I would like to see the quote in context and not just a quote of a quote. I cannot find any document by Aquinas that contains that statement. What I did find in the Summa is this: Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin.
(Summa, first part of the second part, Q76 Article 2).

I understand the difference between sin and punishment for sin but I'd still like to see MF's quote in context too.

 

[RiJoRi]

he's a catholic man made 'saint' and you claim he was a Southern Baptist?

Musta been a proto-So. Bapt. Or maybe a closet Calvinist? ?

--Rich

 

[JPower]

Yes the one true church is neither here or there.
Nothing wrong with the rest of the claims and theology though.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

Yes the one true church is neither here or there.
Nothing wrong with the rest of the claims and theology though.

Sorry, I notice this is your first post. If you're responding to the OP it may be helpful for the audience to know. If you are responding to a comment hit the reply button to the lower right, that will quote who and what you are responding to. Else it's difficult to suss out the meaning of your comments. Just a heads up to help you. Btw, welcome to CARM.

Bless you,

Ldb

 

[romishpopishorganist]

The Dei fide dogma, proclaimed many times throughout Church history, is that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

You mean "Extra ecclesia, nolu salus?"

Sometimes translated as "Outside the Church there is no salvation?"

Who says "Outside" is the proper translation for "Extra?" "Extra" can also be translated as "without." Thus, "Without the Church there is no salvation."

Where even in your Vatican II ecclesiology does it state that there is no salvation without the Catholic Church? Is that statement found in either Unitatis Redintegratio or Lumen Gentium, or is this just more of your made up "theology"?

Do you have some obscure pope who said some obscure something like "It is to be definitively held that the word 'extra' is to be translated as 'outside' and not 'without.'"

Wait--look at who I am talking to--the man with an answer and an obscure quote for everything....the man who never met an obscure pope and obscure quote he didn't like.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

I would like to see the quote in context and not just a quote of a quote. I cannot find any document by Aquinas that contains that statement. What I did find in the Summa is this: Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin.
(Summa, first part of the second part, Q76 Article 2).

I understand the difference between sin and punishment for sin but I'd still like to see MF's quote in context too.

Wouldn't we all?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

@Stella1000 I am not posting my answers to anything. Unlike @romishpopishorganist, who posts his own Hallmark Greeting Card theology, I am just posting examples of magisterium of the Catholic Church, which Catholics are bound to believe.

No. What you are doing is just posting a bunch of quotes. Protestants do that all the time too with the ECF. Anyone can do a Google search of quotes from anyone they want, cut and paste and post them. What, I wonder, would you do without your friend Mr. Google--and an automatic translator?

Real scholarship comes in contextualizing the quotes, understanding the circumstances that gave rise to the quote, the specific question that is being answered, etc. It also comes in knowing the proper translation of the quote since many of the writings are in Latin.

What you are doing is taking specific documents that are attempting to address specific questions---and then using them to address broad issues.

For example: the statement by Boniface "It is necessary for salvation for all people to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" is taken to mean by extreme right rad trads that in order to get to heaven one has to be Catholic and in union with the Bishop of Rome. And---even if the Church DOES teach this----it does not follow that was the question Boniface was addressing.

But when the quote is read in context, one finds that such is not the meaning of the quote at all. The quote was directed to the emperor. What the pope was saying is that in spiritual matters, matters of doctrine, matters of the Church, it is the Church/pope not the state that is the final authority. The quote comes in the context of Cesearopapism and the Church/state struggles for dominance.

You know what is ironic? You rad trads are just as disobedience as any liberal--you just couch your disobedience in the form of obedience. But you essentially do what liberals do: ignore Church teaching you do not agree with---and justify this by invalidating any pope you do not agree with or like.

I cannot stand Pope Francis. I think he has been one disaster after another for the Church. I think he is a theological lightweight. I think he would not know real theology if a theology text book bit him. I disagree with much of what he has said and done. But---he is the valid pope whether I like it or not. The Holy Spirit just guarantees that the Church and papacy will survive the very human people who occupy leadership positions in the Church and prevent them from taking the Church off the rails. It does not guarantee the leaders will be good, know what they are doing, or be good at theology.

 

[Mysterium Fidei]

I've made a good search of the Summa for that statement and can't find it anywhere. Can you quote the whole verse it was contained in so I can see the context. What I found concerning invincible ignorance in the Summa was the opposite of that statement.

I apologize. The quote is not from the Summa. I believe it is from his Summa contra Gentiles, but honestly I have not been able to find it in the original source. It was quoted from a popular article that's an excerpt a book written in 1888 by Fr. Michael Muller where he talks about invincible ignorance. https://breviary.blogspot.com/2007/07/rev-muller-on-pius-ix-and-invincible.html

I was really just trying to make the point that "invincible ignorance" is not a golden ticket that automatically gets a non-Catholic into heaven. Also Novus Ordites often tend to conflate the doctrines of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus with the doctrines of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire, or more properly translated, "the desire of baptism", when they are two separate things.

 

[Mysterium Fidei]

You mean "Extra ecclesia, nolu salus?"

Sometimes translated as "Outside the Church there is no salvation?"

Who says "Outside" is the proper translation for "Extra?" "Extra" can also be translated as "without." Thus, "Without the Church there is no salvation."

Do you have some obscure pope who said some obscure something like "It is to be definitively held that the word 'extra' is to be translated as 'outside' and not 'without.'"

Wait--look at who I am talking to--the man with an answer and an obscure quote for everything....the man who never met an obscure pope and obscure quote he didn't like.

Its not found in Unitatis Redintegratio or Lumen Gentium? So you don't know? Nothing surprising there.

The fact that you believe in "obscure popes" with "obscure" magisterium tells anyone who is Catholic everything they need to know about you.

Your religion, with its Hallmark Greeting Card "theology" began at Vatican II.

 

[Stella1000]

I apologize. The quote is not from the Summa. I believe it is from his Summa contra Gentiles, but honestly I have not been able to find it in the original source. It was quoted from a popular article that's an excerpt a book written in 1888 by Fr. Michael Muller where he talks about invincible ignorance. https://breviary.blogspot.com/2007/07/rev-muller-on-pius-ix-and-invincible.html

I was really just trying to make the point that "invincible ignorance" is not a golden ticket that automatically gets a non-Catholic into heaven. Also Novus Ordites often tend to conflate the doctrines of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus with the doctrines of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire, or more properly translated, "the desire of baptism", when they are two separate things.

So I'm not sure this is the chapter from Summa contra gentiles that your Fr Muller has interpreted to mean "invincible ignorance is a punishment for sin" but nevertheless, this chapter makes Aquinas clear.

CHAPTER CLX--That it is reasonably reckoned a Man's own Fault if he be not converted to God, although he cannot be converted without Grace

SINCE no one can be set on the way to his last end without the aid of divine grace, or without it have the necessary means of reaching that end, as are faith, hope, love and perseverance, some might think that man is not to blame for being destitute of these gifts, especially seeing that he cannot merit the assistance of divine grace, nor be converted to God unless God convert him: for none is responsible for that which depends on another. But allow this, and many absurdities follow. It follows that the man who has neither faith nor hope nor love of God, nor perseverance in good, still does not deserve punishment: whereas it is expressly said: He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him (John iii, 36). And since none reaches the end of happiness without the aforesaid endowments, it would follow further that there are some who neither attain to happiness nor yet suffer punishment of God: the contrary whereof is shown from what will be said to all present at the judgement of God: Come . . . . possess ye the kingdom prepared for you, or, Depart . . . . into everlasting fire (Matt. xxv, 34-41).

To solve this doubt, we must observe that though one can neither merit divine grace beforehand, nor acquire it by movement of his free will, still he can hinder himself from receiving it: for it is said of some: They have said unto God, `Depart from us, we will not have the knowledge of thy ways' (Job xxi, 14). And since it is in the power of free will to hinder the reception of divine grace or not to hinder it, not undeservedly may it be reckoned a man's own fault, if he puts an obstacle in the way of the reception of grace. For God on His part is ready to give grace to all men: He wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. ii, 4). But they alone are deprived of grace, who in themselves raise an obstacle to grace. So when the sun lights up the world, any evil that comes to a man who shuts his eyes is counted his own fault, although he could not see unless the sunlight first came in upon him.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I'm sure Jorge Bergoglio, AKA "Pope Francis", would tell you that you are fine in your Protestant sect and that there is absolutely no reason for you to convert to his religion.

SO why did your "Holy Spirit led College of Cardinals" elect a RINGER to lead your church and be Christ's VICAR on Earth???

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Your religion, with its Hallmark Greeting Card "theology" began at Vatican II.

No, my religion was conceived on the cross, born on Pentecost.

Your religion is, in essence, Protestant. Not that the Protestants on this site would consider you Protestant. As I have attempted to explain to you and will explain again: you and I in their mind--are equally dammed and equally evil. They make no distinction between a rad trad sedevacantist and me. We are one in the same in their mind.

So though you and I disagree on things--we BOTH agree that Protestantism and Pseudo-Protestant religions like Mormons and JW's are not willed by God, nor are false religions. This despite what Bergoglio has said.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

No, my religion was conceived on the cross, born on Pentecost.

Your religion is, in essence, Protestant. Not that the Protestants on this site would consider you Protestant. As I have attempted to explain to you and will explain again: you and I in their mind--are equally dammed and equally evil. They make no distinction between a rad trad sedevacantist and me. We are one in the same in their mind.

So though you and I disagree on things--we BOTH agree that Protestantism and Pseudo-Protestant religions like Mormons and JW's are not willed by God, nor are false religions. This despite what Bergoglio has said.

Interesting. You each have now called the other Protestant, because of your differences in the understanding of Rcism. Where is the unity we so often read of, claimed by Rc's on this site, for your "unified" church while leveling claims of disunity in Protestantism.

 

[Mysterium Fidei]

No. What you are doing is just posting a bunch of quotes. Protestants do that all the time too with the ECF. Anyone can do a Google search of quotes from anyone they want, cut and paste and post them. What, I wonder, would you do without your friend Mr. Google--and an automatic translator?

I'm quoting authentic Catholic magisterium from so called "obscure" popes which have absolutely no meaning for you because it's a different religion from what you follow. Your religion began at Vatican II.

Real scholarship comes in contextualizing the quotes, understanding the circumstances that gave rise to the quote, the specific question that is being answered, etc. It also comes in knowing the proper translation of the quote since many of the writings are in Latin.

Unlike you, I have never claimed to be a theologian.

What you are doing is taking specific documents that are attempting to address specific questions---and then using them to address broad issues.

No, actually I am addressing very specific issues with examples of Catholic magisterium. What we get from you is parroting Bergoglian drivel and Hallmark Greeting Card "theology."

For example: the statement by Boniface "It is necessary for salvation for all people to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" is taken to mean by extreme right rad trads that in order to get to heaven one has to be Catholic and in union with the Bishop of Rome. And---even if the Church DOES teach this----it does not follow that was the question Boniface was addressing.

But when the quote is read in context, one finds that such is not the meaning of the quote at all. The quote was directed to the emperor. What the pope was saying is that in spiritual matters, matters of doctrine, matters of the Church, it is the Church/pope not the state that is the final authority. The quote comes in the context of Cesearopapism and the Church/state struggles for dominance.

This is complete nonsense. Did you make this up out of your own imagination? Are you actually trying to claim the Unam Sanctam is not dogmatic? Have you ever actually read it?

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." This dogmatic language.

Yes, Boniface VIII was having a dispute with Phillip, the King of France, but the Bull is universal in character. He was not writing the Bull to Phillip, that is ridiculous. Papal Bulls are not written to individuals. The theme of secular powers interfering with the affairs of the Church is continuous in the history of the Church.

The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation.

Also, this is only one of the many pronouncements of the Church regarding the Dei fide dogma of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, which you deny.

You know what is ironic? You rad trads are just as disobedience as any liberal--you just couch your disobedience in the form of obedience. But you essentially do what liberals do: ignore Church teaching you do not agree with---and justify this by invalidating any pope you do not agree with or like.

The Catholic Church is indefectible and infallible and cannot propose contradictory doctrines over time. Vatican II decreed and implemented teachings previously condemned by the Infallible Teaching Magisterium of the Church. This leave the Catholic with two choices.

Either the Catholic Church is not indefectible nor infallible and is just like every other non-Catholic sect that changes doctrines, worship and disciplines over time according to circumstance. or....

Those who are imposing these contradictory teachings are not the true hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

I choose to believe the difficult over the impossible. The pope is the standard and rule of faith.

Recognizing someone as pope doesn’t make you a Catholic. Recognizing and submitting to the pope as the rule of faith: that’s what makes you a Catholic. If you look at the evidence, you clearly see that Bergoglio is not the rule of faith, so there’s no authority to recognize in him.

I cannot stand Pope Francis. I think he has been one disaster after another for the Church. I think he is a theological lightweight. I think he would not know real theology if a theology text book bit him. I disagree with much of what he has said and done. But---he is the valid pope whether I like it or not. The Holy Spirit just guarantees that the Church and papacy will survive the very human people who occupy leadership positions in the Church and prevent them from taking the Church off the rails. It does not guarantee the leaders will be good, know what they are doing, or be good at theology.

I find it very difficult to believe that you can't stand Bergoglio when you are quoting his modernist drivil nearly word for word. What exactly is it you don't like about him?

Bergoglio was well educated in pre-Vatican II Church. The man knows what the Catholic Faith is, he just hates it.

A pope could be completely ignorant of theology, but he could still be a valid, and even a holy, pope. What a pope cannot be, is a heretic and he cannot teach heresy to the universal Church, which Bergoglio has done.

 

[mica]

I'm quoting authentic Catholic magisterium from so called "obscure" popes which have absolutely no meaning for you because it's a different religion from what you follow. Your religion began at Vatican II.

Unlike you, I have never claimed to be a theologian.

No, actually I am addressing very specific issues with examples of Catholic magisterium. What we get from you is parroting Bergoglian drivel and Hallmark Greeting Card "theology."

This is complete nonsense. Did you make this up out of your own imagination? Are you actually trying to claim the Unam Sanctam is not dogmatic? Have you ever actually read it?

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." This dogmatic language.

Yes, Boniface VIII was having a dispute with Phillip, the King of France, but the Bull is universal in character. He was not writing the Bull to Phillip, that is ridiculous. Papal Bulls are not written to individuals. The theme of secular powers interfering with the affairs of the Church is continuous in the history of the Church.

The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation.

Also, this is only one of the many pronouncements of the Church regarding the Dei fide dogma of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, which you deny.

The Catholic Church is indefectible and infallible and cannot propose contradictory doctrines over time. Vatican II decreed and implemented teachings previously condemned by the Infallible Teaching Magisterium of the Church. This leave the Catholic with two choices.

Either the Catholic Church is not indefectible nor infallible and is just like every other non-Catholic sect that changes doctrines, worship and disciplines over time according to circumstance. or....

Those who are imposing these contradictory teachings are not the true hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

I choose to believe the difficult over the impossible. The pope is the standard and rule of faith.

Recognizing someone as pope doesn’t make you a Catholic. Recognizing and submitting to the pope as the rule of faith: that’s what makes you a Catholic. If you look at the evidence, you clearly see that Bergoglio is not the rule of faith, so there’s no authority to recognize in him.

I find it very difficult to believe that you can't stand Bergoglio when you are quoting his modernist drivil nearly word for word. What exactly is it you don't like about him?

Bergoglio was well educated in pre-Vatican II Church. The man knows what the Catholic Faith is, he just hates it.

A pope could be completely ignorant of theology, but he could still be a valid, and even a holy, pope. What a pope cannot be, is a heretic and he cannot teach heresy to the universal Church, which Bergoglio has done.

What a pope cannot be, is a heretic and he cannot teach heresy to the universal Church, which Bergoglio has done.

what the rcc teaches is contrary to scripture. which do you claim is heresy - scripture or rcc teachings?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." This dogmatic language.

Yes, Boniface VIII was having a dispute with Phillip, the King of France, but the Bull is universal in character. He was not writing the Bull to Phillip, that is ridiculous. Papal Bulls are not written to individuals. The theme of secular powers interfering with the affairs of the Church is continuous in the history of the Church.

The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation.

Yes; the people who BELONG TO THE CHURCH. "Belong to the Church" being the key word. The statement is not directed at Muslims or Jews. The statement is directed to Catholics. There were no Protestants to contend with at this time. How could Boniface be answering a question about Protestantism---when Protestantism didn't exist yet? This statement, therefore is directed to Catholics--and what the statements MEANS is that the Pope, not the king or emperor is the final authority in spiritual matters. Catholics look to the pope not the king or emperor when it comes to the final authority in spiritual matters. Does historical context mean nothing to you? So I agree that the scope is UNIVERSAL. It remains true today--that the pope, not the government or secular rulers is the final authority on spiritual matters. Catholics look to the pope, not the queen, not the president, not the king when it comes to spiritual matters/matters pertaining to salvation. What I DISAGREE with is what YOU are attempting to twist the statement to say.

You are taking a statement that comes in a specific historical context---talking about a specific question, namely the authority of the pope in the Church vs. the emperor or king--and making it say "Everyone, Jew, Muslim, atheist, Protestant, whoever, has to either submit to the pope or go to Hell." Even IF the Church DOES teach that-----that wasn't what Boniface was saying.

Also, this is only one of the many pronouncements of the Church regarding the Dei fide dogma of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, which you deny.

I do not deny this. Again, I do not twist the statement to mean something it does not say. Contextually statements like this tended to be directed to heretics--that is--Catholics who left the Church or broke Communion with her. Statements were not directed to people who were never Catholic.

Secondly, again, the Latin "extra" (which you left out of the quote above) should be translated "without" not "outside." In Latin, the word "extra" is translated "outside" when referring to specific physical objects. For example: "It is raining outside" or "Beyond the road is a ditch." When referring to the abstract, the word should be translated as "without." For example: "Without a text book it is difficult to teach." "Without the Church there is no salvation."

I believe and profess that there is no salvation without the Church. I can even agree there is no salvation outside the Church--the Church of Christ which subsists in the RCC but is not synonymous with the RCC. The Church of Christ is broader and larger than the visible boundaries or aspects of the RCC.

Of course you, Mr. Answer man, the man who has an answer and a quote for everything, will claim that "Invincible ignorance does not apply" then you will line up obscure quote after obscure quote from obscure pope after obscure pope and then go "I win." Of course you will ignore the historical context in which those quotes appear, and you will ignore the specific point they are addressing--and assume they apply to modern day Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc.

The Catholic Church is indefectible and infallible and cannot propose contradictory doctrines over time. Vatican II decreed and implemented teachings previously condemned by the Infallible Teaching Magisterium of the Church. This leave the Catholic with two choices.

No, what Vatican II did was rephrase the teachings in a positive way. Instead of using the old "If anyone says...let them be anathema" Vatican II attempted to re-phrase Church teaching according to modern language. People do not speak or think in terms of "let them be anathema" anymore. People do not think in Scholastic and Neo-Scholastic categories anymore. I do happen to fancy Scholasticism and Neo-Scholasticism, but for the modern person---they do not understand them.

I choose to believe the difficult over the impossible. The pope is the standard and rule of faith.

No, the Scriptures are the standard and Rule of Faith. Even the Neo-Scholastic theologians after Trent would have agreed with that. The Neo-Scholastic theologians made a distinction between the "Proximate Rule of Faith" and the "Remote Rule of Faith." I am surprised you are not aware of this. I would think you of all people would know this---you are the master of obscurity after all.

Besides---how is the pope the "standard and rule of Faith" when you and you rad-trad cohorts dismiss papal teaching you disagree with? By this you show that you do not believe the pope is the standard and rule of Faith--as--for you to dismiss popes as heretics, there must be some other standard you are using in order to do that. Thus, you refute your own statement by your example! So is the pope the standard or not? If the pope is the standard, submit!

 

[Nondenom40]

Interesting. You each have now called the other Protestant, because of your differences in the understanding of Rcism. Where is the unity we so often read of, claimed by Rc's on this site, for your "unified" church while leveling claims of disunity in Protestantism.

They each think they are "the one true church" yet they can't agree. Isn't that the very thing they level against us all the time? And here it is in black and white.