The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

“The Church’s relationship with Muslims. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 841, quoting Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964).

The Anthanasian Creed says however:

It is furthermore necessary for eternal salvation truly to believe

that our Lord Jesus Christ also took on human flesh.

Now this is the true Christian faith:

We believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and man.

He is God, eternally begotten from the nature of the Father, and he is man, born in time from the nature of his mother, fully God, fully man, with rational soul and human flesh,

equal to the Father as to his deity, less than the Father as to his humanity;

and though he is both God and Man, Christ is not two persons but one,

one, not by changing the deity into flesh, but by taking the humanity into God;

one, indeed, not by mixture of the natures, but by unity in one person;

for just as the rational soul and flesh are one human being, so God and man are one Christ.

He suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose the third day from the dead.

He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty, and from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

At his coming all people will rise with their own bodies to answer for their personal deeds.

Those who have done good will enter eternal life,

but those who have done evil will go into eternal fire.

This is the true Christian faith.

Whoever does not faithfully and firmly believe this cannot be saved.

Can this be true? There is salvation for Muslims who deny the diety of Christ but not for Lutherans who worship the Holy Trinity?

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 04, 2003

Answers

People seem intent to see Islam in Hell at the minute....Anything to do with 9/11 and the Occupation of Iraq?

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 04, 2003.

Well, isn't our God the Holy Trinity and isn't worship directed toward anything else directed toward a false god?

The Anthansian Creed says so:

Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all else, hold to the true Christian faith.

Whoever does not keep this faith pure in all points will certainly perish forever.

Now this is the true Christian faith: We worship one God in three persons and three persons in one God, without mixing the persons or dividing the divine being. For each person -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit -- is distinct, but the deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,equal in glory and coeternal in majesty. What the Father is, so is the Son, and so is the Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreated, the Son uncreated, the Holy Spirit uncreated; the Father is infinite, the Son infinite, the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father is eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Spirit eternal; yet they are not three who are eternal, but there is one who is eternal, just as they are not three who are uncreated, nor three who are infinite, but there is one who is uncreated and one who is infinite. In the same way the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, and the Holy Spirit is almighty;yet they are not three who are almighty, but there is one who is almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God; yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord; yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord. For just as Christian truth compels us to confess each person individually to be God and Lord, so the true Christian faith forbids us to speak of three Gods or three Lords. The Father is neither made nor created nor begotten of anyone. The Son is neither made nor created, but is begotten of the Father alone. The Holy Spirit is neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeds from the Father and the Son. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And within this Trinity none comes before or after; none is greater or inferior, but all three persons are coequal and coeternal,so that in every way, as stated before, all three persons are to be worshiped as one God and one God worshiped as three persons. Whoever wishes to be saved must have this conviction of the Trinity.

Last time I checked they don't believe in the Trinity.

There is a man here called "Eugene" who says that because I am a Lutheran I am damned to hell. How come Muslims are saved who don't worship the same God we do, but I am damned?

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 04, 2003.

The Catholic Church does not teach that Protestants are "doomed to hell". The Catechism explains clearly what the Church teaches regarding the salvation of those who lack the fullness of truth through no fault of their own.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 04, 2003.

Then why does Eugene keep telling me that? I know I am saved. IU don't need Eugene or the Pope or anyone else to tell me so. But you very craftily avoided the more important question: How is it that Muslims will go to heaven when they deny that Jesus is God or died on the cross and "putting partners with Allah is the worst sin of shirk"?

Islam denies the Trinity:

"Certainly they disbelieve those who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve" (Sura 5:73).

“O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son” (Sura 4:171).

Islam denies the Father and the Son:

“The Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them" (Sura 9:29-30).

“It does not befit GOD that He begets a son, be He glorified” (Sura 19:35).

Islam denies the Deity of Christ:

“The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was no more than God’s apostle” (Sura 4).

“They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary” (Sura 5:72).

“And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right” (Sura 5:116).

“In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary” (Sura 5:17).

According to the Catechism, “together with us (Catholics) they (Muslims) adore the one, merciful God.” Pope John Paul II repeats this statement even more clearly. Addressing Muslim youths, the Pope said: “We believe in the same God, the one and only God, the living God, the God who creates worlds and brings creatures to their perfection” (What Dialogue Means for Catholics and Muslims, US Conference of Catholic Bishops, http://www.usccb.org/seia/brunett.htm).

How is this possible? Can someone please explain this to me? Because I always that the we worshipped the Holy Trinity and not Allah.

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 04, 2003.

Hey Jeanie!

In order to understand this, one must first realize that (according to the teachings of the Catholic Church) only the Catholic Church has the fulness of truth. Then, any other ecclesiastical community that has teachings in common with the Catholic Church is considered by the Church to be right in those areas.

So, when Moslems declare that there is one God, they are right. When Protestants declare that there are three persons in one God, they are also right. It is just in their other teachings that they are incorrect. So, while the Moslems are indeed included in the plan of salvation (God wants everyone to be saved), Protestants are our seperated brethren.

However, people cannot be blamed if they have invincible ignorance. In other words, if someone has never come in contact with the truth, he cannot be held responsible to follow the truth beyond what he knows. If a boy grows up on a desert island, it's not his fault that he has never read the Bible.

On the other hand, if someone regularly spends time on a Catholic forum without genuinely paying attention to the truth offered there, they are trifling with their eternal destiny.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), December 04, 2003.

P.S. Are you using voice-recognition software?

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), December 04, 2003.

No I'm not. This is a heresy pure and simple. If you can't see that then I feel very sorry for you all. Salvation is through Christ alone.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Through JESUS! Not the Pope, Not Mary, and Not ALLAH!

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 04, 2003.

I was not always a Lutheran. About 3 years ago I joined an ELCA church and was baptized. I found out online that they were going to start ordaining homosexuals. Shortly thereafter, I sat through a sermon where the pastor said that bringing a homosexual to repentance was "gay bashing". That was roughly 11 or 12 days before 9/11 and that greatly disturbed me. I was seriously wrestling with leaving my church. Then 2 or 3 weeks after 9/11 my pastor brought in a muslim cleric into our Adult Sunday School class. He told us that we all worship the same god. After his presentation to us I raised my hand and said to him, "Excuse me, But I disagree with what you said. We don't worship the same God. We worship the Holy Trinity here." I was the only person in that room to stand up for God and the truth! Shortly thereafter I confronted my pastor. He said to me, "Yes I believe that! And I also believe that good muslims and good jews will go to heaven!" That was when I finally made my decision to leave. They weren't preaching the truth of the Bible! It was all a lie! I cannot tell you how much it broke my heart to leave. In the short time I was there, I had become a part of that church family. But I knew what I had to do for the love of God and his Word.

So, when I show this to you people and you condone it and even defend it, something that is so clearly against everything that the Bible teaches, then I'm sorry but I have no respect for you.

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 04, 2003.

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly ... And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully [truly and firmly], he cannot be saved."

Yes Jeanie, the above is in fact Catholic Dogma. Anyone who denies it denies the Holy Catholic Faith.

What can I say? It's just... well, the Truth, that's all. Hey, y'aint dead yet! Seek and you will find, I have no doubt about that.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 04, 2003.

You show me the last 3 lines of the creed? What about the rest? What about Muslims? Are they going to heaven like the pope says?

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 04, 2003.

Jeanie,

Your account of church-hopping is so sadly typical of Protestants. ECLA was great until you ran into some teaching you didn't like, so go become a Lutheran. Lutheran is great right now but when you run into something you don't personally care for, there will always be some denomination out there that teaches just what you want to hear. Of course I fully agree with you that what the ECLA pastor said was incompatible with Christianity. But so are some Lutheran beliefs. And some of the beliefs you will find in any manmade church. Jumping around from church to church in search of the fullness of truth is the Protestant way. But you'll never find it until you find the Church Jesus Christ founded for all men. That's why that Church is called the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 04, 2003.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED

This creed is named after St. Athanasius, a staunch defender of the Christian faith in the fourth century. It was prepared to assist the Church in combating two errors that undermined Bible teaching. One error denied that God's Son and the Holy Spirit are of one being or Godhead with the Father. The other error denied that Jesus Christ is true God and true man In one person. The Athanasian Creed continues to serve the Christian Church as a standard of the truth. It declares that whoever rejects the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of Christ is without the saving faith.

But wait a cotton pickin' minute! Aren't those the same errors in the Muslim faith as well? Has the church, in 1600 years, really moved so far away from the truth?

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 04, 2003.

Sorry Paul M. I am no longer reading your heretetical posts either! The truth is the truth!

I found a church that is preaching the word in truth and purity and who is rightly administering the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. That is what is important to me! I love God and I love the truth! And like God, I hate every wrong path. I am very happy there.

The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan...and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.(2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 04, 2003.

Hi Jeanie,

Keep searching for the truth and you'll find it.

This page or this onemight answer some of your questions.

God bless,

FGC

"The Moslems together with us adore the one merciful God." Lumen Gentium

A) "The Holy Catholic Church teaches that God cannot truly be adored except within its fold." Pope St. Gregory the Great

B) "The Catholic Church alone preserves true worship." Pope Pius XI

C) "A true worshipper is one whose mind has not been defiled with any false belief." Pope St. Leo the Great

D) Right Reason. No man can worship the one true God "together with us" if they do not share our one true faith. Islam teaches that Jesus is not God and that there is only one person in God; hence, they do not believe in the God we worship. Thus, they can in no way worship "with us" our God. A man cannot worship in any way that which he does not believe in, for the Law of Praying is the Law of Believing, and vice-versa. If they believe in a one-person deity, THAT is what they worship, and in no way "with us" can they worship the Holy Trinity, the Second Person of Which is a human being like us in all things but sin. No one can adore "together with us" a God they do not believe in (the Trinity). We cannot adore "together with" them a deity we do not believe in (one who permits four wives, as does the Koran).

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), December 04, 2003.

oops... guess I didn't close my html tag.

meant or this one

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), December 04, 2003.

So then why does the Catechism say that if it's not what you believe?

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 04, 2003.

Good question, Jeanie.

All Catechisms are not infallible, but there are teachings in them that are infallible.

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), December 04, 2003.

"What about Muslims? Are they going to heaven like the pope says?"

Not unless, before death, they enter into the Catholic Church, and after entering, persevere to death in a state of grace.

The Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded; it's His means of saving souls. There is no other way.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 04, 2003.

Nice references, FGC. Dang!

The Catechism is being treated like

1. The pope wrote the whole thing, and 2. That it's infallible.

He didn't, and it's not.

We must uphold always-known, alway-held Catholic doctrine.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 04, 2003.

Jeanie, It is true that those who reject Christ are outside salvation.... But how can they know the truth unless the truth is brought to them? And how is the truth brought them? Through Christians bringing Christ to them; not simply by what they say but what they are; by being transformed, through the action of the Holy Spirit through one degree of glory to the next into the image of Christ. But we are sinners and most often fall far short of the glory to which God calls us. How then can we blaim our sisters and brothers for failing to recognise Christ when we ourselves, His followers fall so sinfully short of the proclaimation; the Holiness, the Christlikeness to which we are called. Let us not condemn our sisters and brothers for failing to recognise the Christ we by our lives so wilfully and sinfully obscure.

-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 04, 2003.

Jmj

[I am about to make some statements about "teachings" (doctrines) in the Vatican Catechisms (post-Trent and post-Vatican-II). I am starting with this comment to make sure that I am not misunderstood. I am talking about actual teachings here -- not opinions, not prudential judgments, not anything that is of a lesser character than a teaching.]

Whatever any given person suspects about a given teaching in a Catechism -- that is, that the teaching may be "infallible" or not -- is completely irrelevant.

All that matters is that it is a magisterial teaching -- from which various things follow, including these:

1. We are required, under pain of sin, to "adhere to [the teaching] with a religious assent," with "religious submission of mind and will."

2. We are to acknowledge that it either is already an infallible teaching or could some day be proclaimed as one.

3. We are forbidden to claim that the teaching is or contains error. [This follows logically from #1 and #2.]

[As a pre-emptive strike, I'll just say to all "lurkers" that if anyone now claims that I am wrong, you can be sure that he is not yet an informed, faithful Catholic, but someone who has chosen (or been taught) to believe less than he is required to believe. I can say this because what I have stated above does not come from my head, but from the Church herself.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 04, 2003.

1. We are required, under pain of sin, to "adhere to [the teaching] with a religious assent," with "religious submission of mind and will."

This comes from Lumen Gentium.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 04, 2003.

Then if it is not the official doctrine of The Cult of Mary (the RCC) then why did Pope John Paul II tell a group of Muslim youths, “We believe in the same God, the one and only God, the living God, the God who creates worlds and brings creatures to their perfection”(What Dialogue Means for Catholics and Muslims, US Conference of Catholic Bishops, http://www.usccb.org/seia/brunett.htm). Let's face it! This is a heresy and that makes you heretics! (sorry!)

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 04, 2003.

"Let's face it! This is a heresy and that makes you heretics!"

If so, it slices you from the equation also. I'm not sure how this lends credence to your argument, unless you are attempting a reductio ad absurdem. If so, I would like to see it carried through in clarity, in it's entirety.

As for this Cult of Mary, using your term, it has always been this way; the Catholic Church has always been true the her role. And her role too. The depth of this understanding is lost outside the Catholic Church.

Regarding the Muslims, "Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One" is not a new invocation but one that extends back to the early Church. In the orginal language of this ancient prayer, one can find the word "Allah" because "Allah" is the generic word for God, and not necessarily a reference to the god of the Mohammedians. The gods of the pagans are demons, and the Allah of the Mohammedians is not the One True God, the One who is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the God of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the New Israel of the new and eternal testament. The Mohammedians are the descendents of Ishmael: see Chapter 16 of Genesis.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 04, 2003.

Then if it is not the official doctrine of The Cult of Mary (the RCC) then why did Pope John Paul II tell a group of Muslim youths, “We believe in the same God, the one and only God, the living God, the God who creates worlds and brings creatures to their perfection”

The Pope never, in his capacity as Vicar of Christ, declared the above as any teaching which is binding upon the Universal Church.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 04, 2003.

"As for this Cult of Mary, using your term, it has always been this way; the Catholic Church has always been true the her role. And her role too. The depth of this understanding is lost outside the Catholic Church. "

No actually it didnt start till the 5th century. If you read the Antichristian Mariology thread I just posted you would know that.

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 04, 2003.

"The Pope never, in his capacity as Vicar of Christ, declared the above as any teaching which is binding upon the Universal Church."

If this is not a TEACHING of YOUR CHURCH, the CoM(Cult of Mary), then WHY are you TEACHING it? It's that simple!

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 04, 2003.

Am I wrong in thinking that ultimately, God has the final decision with regard to our eternal fate? If this is the case, doesn't all of this bickering about bible verses and perhaps what the Pope said about followers of Islam seem somewhat mute? We've been given a path to follow. Its our responsibility to get ourselves where we hope to be. I find these forum arguments productive only in that they educate me more about the faith I became somewhat delinquent in over the past 20 years. I don't think anyone wins in deciding who's damned. Jim.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), December 04, 2003.

Well, my husband just converted from Islam to Christianity. Let's ask him if muslims are going to heaven!

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 04, 2003.

Jeanie, this is from the site (2nd link) I posted earlier. It's a great site to learn more about the Catholic Faith.

In our Church, we are seeing the results of this infiltration coupled with the effects of the pressures of secular materialism and sheer hedonism. We are told that "since Vatican II, the Church no longer teaches/practices/believes" various aspects of Catholic doctrine -- and we are often told this by priests, even Bishops and Cardinals.

Know this, though, Christian: true Catholic teaching has not changed - - cannot change. It doesn't matter if 99 out of 100 priests say X or if every single theologian who calls himself "Catholic" teaches X or if the Pope himself teaches X; if Scripture and Tradition don't teach X, then X is not Catholic teaching. Doctrine may be expounded on and explained more fully, and a doctrine that has always been believed may be raised to the level of dogma, but what was true 50 years ago is still true today. Practices and liturgical forms may grow consistently with Tradition, but they should not be revolutionized. And there is no "spirit of Vatican II" which makes heresy and irreverence OK.

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), December 04, 2003.

be wary FGC, you are bordering on heresy...

It doesn't matter if the Pope himself teaches X; if Scripture and Tradition don't teach X, then X is not Catholic teaching.

you, as any who can TRUELY claim to be catholic, should know that the pope CANNOT teach X if it isnt true. there has NEVER been a pope make a false dogmatic teaching...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 04, 2003.

Poor, confused Jeannie!

Here is her latest carp: ''Whoever does not faithfully and firmly believe this cannot be saved.''

Can this be true? There is salvation for Muslims who deny the diety of Christ but not for Lutherans who worship the Holy Trinity?-- ''

OK, let's presume you won't be ignoring this, as you warned today-- In the practical sense, most Moslems are going to be damned, Jeannie. Practically speaking, many Protestants like yourself are going to be damned too. As well as the Catholics who are unfaithful despite having been exposed to the full truth of the Gospel. Yes; many Catholics will sadly go to hell. Because of their sins.

The Moslems will be damned by their own sins. The Protestants as well; by the sins they didn't repent of.

Yet; a small crack is left in the door by an All-Merciful God. This is such a slight opportunity we shouldn't even be having to rationalize it to Your Highness.

That's it in a nutshell. The Church knows and teaches that --Given the rare circumstance, God can save a soul without consulting anybody. He is God, after all. This is what the Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught us. Because we have it all from Jesus Christ, by way of His apostles. Look in here: Chapter 19, Matt: 26; ''With God all things are possible.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 05, 2003.

"be wary FGC, you are bordering on heresy..."

No he's not.

You are, though. I don't mean that in a nasty way, but simply as a point of fact. I'm sure like many others, you'll get through it eventually.

Gene says:

"In the practical sense, most Moslems are going to be damned, Jeannie. Practically speaking, many Protestants like yourself are going to be damned too. As well as the Catholics who are unfaithful despite having been exposed to the full truth of the Gospel. Yes; many Catholics will sadly go to hell. Because of their sins. The Moslems will be damned by their own sins. The Protestants as well; by the sins they didn't repent of."

That's it right here; that's the truth.

The crack in the door? Oh, whatever... if it's the door of the Catholic Church, with it's salvific Sacraments, then sure. There is no other way.

There really is no salvation outside the Church. If this is disconcerting to people, then they should start praying, or harder.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 05, 2003.

"No actually it didnt start till the 5th century. If you read the Antichristian Mariology thread I just posted you would know that."

I know nothing of the sort. I know what I know, if you know what I mean. I know this:

"And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb ... And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is his name. And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble. He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy. As he spoke to our fathers: to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

Who calls her Blessed? Who? The Cult? Is the Cult Israel his servant?

Well then, let it be done according to His Word, the Word made flesh, the Real Presence.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 05, 2003.

I need to calm down.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 05, 2003.

You are, though. I don't mean that in a nasty way, but simply as a point of fact. I'm sure like many others, you'll get through it eventually.

really emerald? you think that the statement that the pope speaks infallably on matters of dogma is bordering on heresy? so let me ask you this: can you read what i ACTUALLY wrote, or are you openly admitting disobedience to the pope? either way, GET OFF MY BACK. honestly i thought you to be more intelligent than that.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 05, 2003.

But even the errors of Gnosticism do not offer the Mariologist sufficient basis for supporting his thesis. Its historical premises are too isolated, and their origins are too suspect. Mariology is forced to wait until the 5th century, before the actual beginnings of the cult of Mary in the Church are encountered.

5.

In the 5th century the unfortunate time begins, in which the Church could no longer eliminate the poison of heresy. On the one hand the conviction was gaining ground steadily that the apostolic tradition laid down in the canon of the Scriptures is not sufficient in itself: it has to be perfected and accommodated to philosophy, which it dare not contradict. On the other hand the central doctrine of the free grace of God in Christ Jesus was being erased more and more in favor of a legalistic doctrine of salvation. In the East the Neo-Platonic mysticism of deification spread farther than ever, and in the West the Church was unable even with the help of St. Augustine to break through with a pure doctrine of sin and grace. The mystery of grace, which is fundamental for both the person and the work of Christ, became the subject of discussion and revision on the part of a misguided and dissatisfied human reason (ratio humana). Thus certain Christological heresies, and particularly Pelagianism, are not only symptomatic signs of the times, but in spite of the decisions of the church councils, in spite of energetic defense against them (as by St. Augustine), they root themselves ever more deeply, gain a footing everywhere, and inflict wounds on still youthful Christian theology— which, hardly covered with a scar, can break open again at any time.

****************************************************

But where do we find the Scriptural basis for the mariology of the Roman Church? Some believe that they find it in Gen. 3:15, where God says to the serpent, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Isa. 7:14 is also cited: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”—In the interpretation of these passages we agree with Rome to this extent, that we see in them prophecy of the birth of the Savior, His conception by a virgin, and the victory of man over Satan in and through Christ. But to derive the theses for mariolatry from them seems like a bold stroke, in which we have to deal with anything but theology. For in Gen. 3:15 the term woman (h#$@f)i) designates Eve, and not Mary, as the mariologists insist, cf. vv. 12, 13, and 16. The woman’s Seed, Christ, in the protevangelium is the descendant of Eve, the first woman, who introduced transgression. He (Hebrew: w%h), not Eve (Vulgate: ipsa), shall bruise the head of the serpent. The seed of Jacob, in whom all the families of the earth shall be blessed, Gen. 28:14, was not his immediate descendant, but a distant descendant, Christ. Isaiah 7:14 does not support Roman mariology either, although here the miraculous birth of Christ by a virgin is prophesied most distinctly. Here the prophet is giving the dynasty of David the sign of divine judgment, that not it, but the untouched, unknown virgin shall bear the Messiah. By a miracle of God the prophecy of judgment is changed into a prophecy of grace. The emphasis shifts plainly also from the virgin, who is only God’s maid, to Immanuel, the God-with- us, cf. Isaiah 8:8, 10. The Roman theologians also appeal to Luke 1:28, which reads: “And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee,” in order to justify at least the Roman doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary. But with the best of good intentions we cannot find any support for that doctrine here. In that case we should have to attribute to Stephen also an immaculate conception, for of him it is said Acts 6:8: “And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.” It is perfectly clear that the Catholic theologian must first inject his own meaning into the sacred text before he can use it to support his thesis. And it is certainly not proper for the Roman church to do that; in doing so the Roman church follows the principle, that the Scriptures are her property; that it is she who has given the Scriptures their present form, that she is the guardian of the Scriptures and can determine their text in the confident assurance of her own infallibility. The Roman Church does not require that its doctrine agree with the Scriptures, for although revelation is concluded, she, the Church, is herself the real revelation. She needs only to become fully conscious of herself and of her treasures to render a new dogma true, and that by virtue of her continual revelation, which consists in this, that man, who has the mastery over God, seeks to gain control of the divine mystery, in order to accommodate it to his own rules of thinking.

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.

"really emerald? you think that the statement that the pope speaks infallably on matters of dogma is bordering on heresy?"

No. When the Pope speaks infallibly on dogma, he is acting to clarify. He makes it very plain by the words he chooses, when he does so.

"so let me ask you this: can you read what i ACTUALLY wrote"

Yes I can. Here it is again:

"...the pope CANNOT teach X if it isnt true. there has NEVER been a pope make a false dogmatic teaching..."

There is an ambiguity concerning the word "teach".

It IS in fact true, as you say, that there never has been a pope who has made a false statement concerning dogma which has been put forth as infallible, or binding upon the faithful, as a matter of dogma, to be believed by the Universal Church.

An overly-obvious example: it is impossible that the pope, when speaking ex-cathedra, would declare to the Universal Church that there are seventeen persons in the Holy Trinity. Clearly this would be heresy; clearly it would need to be ignored by you and by me. But if spoken Ex Cathedra, in this case, clearly the gates of Hell would have prevailed against The Rock. But they won't prevail... we have the promise that they won't; therefore, the Holy Ghost would never allow this to happen.

The Holy Ghost will not allow that to happen. So it won't.

BUT...

The pope can in fact "teach" something, NOT invoking his role as Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, NOT intending to declare or clarify dogma to the Universal Church, and make an error. The pope can in fact say wrong stuff. Infallibility is not a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week force field of Catholic truth.

Not everything the Pontiff says is infallible. Not even everything the pope "teaches" is infallible. Hear ye, for heaven's sake. When is the last a pope said something infallible? How about this:

In the year of Our Lord 1854 in the Bull Ineffabilis, Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Thank you, Pope Puis IX):

"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful".

That was the most recent, right? Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Have there been any more recent than this?

So check it out, paul... take a look at the bolded portion. It says "We declare, pronounce and define". You've got the Universal "WE", ok, and the declare, and the pronounce, alright, and then the define. The pontiff is doing something here. He is defining doctrine. He isn't yammering about his personal opinions or whatever... he is actually excercising infallibility. He's doing it right there. What he says following those words "declare, pronounce and define" needs to be adhered to by faithful Catholics under pain of hellfire and brimstone.

Vatican II never did this. Ever. Anywhere. About anything.

Son of a gun, I wish you people would take the time to understand infallibility.

"are you openly admitting disobedience to the pope?"

Nooooo!

"either way, GET OFF MY BACK."

No!

"honestly i thought you to be more intelligent than that."

From the depths of my being, I would like to impart something that may be of immense value to you:

Intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with salvation. Really. Look around your desk there... see your Rosary? Pick it up, and slowly begin to meditate on what salvation really does have to do with. Good! lol.

One more thing: thank God there's no such thing as a "false dogmatic teaching". At ease; you're a good man.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 05, 2003.

There is an ambiguity concerning the word "teach".

isnt this like clintons little get out of jail free card... you know, the good old "that depends what the definition of 'is' is."

come on emerald, we all know that the pope can speak from a non infallable perspective. HOWEVER>>> in matters of grave import to salvation the pope is teaching on dogma!!! this means that the pope MUST be speaking infallably.

FURTHERMORE, what does the pope have to say to make it infallable? does he have to say "i really really really mean it this time guys, come on" NO!!!! i'd like to think that the catholic teaching against abortion and euthanasia, or against cloning, is a infallable teaching, but according to YOU the last time the pope said anything infallable was in the late 1800's. what about banning condoms, or the pill? not infallable? see emerald, there are dogmatic interpretations outside of WRITTEN PAPERS.

by the way, i know that intellect is not a measure of salvation, nor common sense, but theyre still good virtues to have.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 05, 2003.

Hi Paul H.

Would you say the following is infallible?

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), December 05, 2003.

Don't take that as an endorsement of Islamic ''truth''. The words say, The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, (Muslims, Jews.)

God knows that despite their error, these are believers in the One True God. His PLAN is for their deliverance by Christ, as grace is available EVEN FOR these men. But he isn't saying, ''They also will be saved, because they worship One God.''

If we fail to read any nuances the first thing that flies out the door is our very CONTEMPLATION of God's grace; and with it any desire to help bring about our brother's eventual salvation. God expects us to see these things as grown men and women, not as fanatics or school-children.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 05, 2003.

Hi Eugene,

"God knows that despite their error, these are believers in the One True God."

How can they (Muslims, Jews) be believers in the One True God when the One True God is Three Persons in One God, ie. The Trinity which they overtly deny.

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), December 05, 2003.

thanks eugene

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 05, 2003.

You and I realise the truth revealed by Jesus Christ, Mr.Foegen. Faithful Jews and their heretical kinsmen the Moslems are monotheists by choice. Yet, the God of Abraham and Isaac is that Creator both mean to serve. Until they have believed Jesus is the Christ and Son of the Almighty, they will remain monotheists. This is normal for Jews. It should be so for Moslems as well, despite their evil prophet. There IS just ONE GOD; and we know this is all three Persons in One God. It's not necessary to be scandalized by their error. They share the one God in common with me & you. It's just that they reject His Word. As I try to explain above; we must take in account every nuance of these pronouncements, not only the ''shocking'' parts.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 05, 2003.

Hi Eugene,

"Yet, the God of Abraham and Isaac is that Creator both mean to serve."

Who are they serving in the meantime?

I'm not sure who Mr.Fogen is...not me.

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), December 05, 2003.

Matthew 3:9

And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

Thought that in this season of Advent that a quote from John the Baptist was appropriate :D

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.

Jeanie

Tell me why . . . its necessary for my Salvation, to say that all Muslims are going to Hell?

Do you really think that making bold claims like "All Muslims are going to Hell," is going to help you in your cause to get to Heaven?

Aren't you the least little bit worried that condeming millions of people to Hell in one bold statement, is going to get you in a little hot water when you are ready for your own entrance at the gates of Heaven?

This church doesn't make such a claim. I never heard your church, the Lutheran church make such a claim.

You pull a couple of passages from the bible . . . out of context . . . and hold them up as a banner to "prove" your claim of righeousness; but at the same time you dismiss the whole "spirit of the Gospels. What I hear is that, the Bible, in the hands of self righteous ministers of truth can be an awkward thing.

You can spend a lot of wasted energy trying to decide which of us are going to heaven and which are going to Hell or you could walk a different path and simply dwell on one simple truth . . . "I know that God has given me all that I need to claim my salvation within the Catholic Church," That's all you need to know and that's all that is important.

I can't see how my salvation depends upon me judging all who differ from me and in fact, I firmly believe that my salvation does truely depend upon not judging others. It's my vocation in life to live my faith as a sacrament to the rest of the world.

If others choose to follow a different path, it's nothing but folly for me to say whether they're right or wrong. God has given me this church and I'll cling to her as my rock, confident that if my faith is strong, I can ride out any storm, between me and my goal . . . which is God's grace and salvation.

Can I offer a suggestion, rather than sitting at home, picking fights on this Catholic chat site, contact a local Catholic church about their RCIA program. Should you choose to attend you can see for yourself what the real Catholic Church is and cease all this tail chasing that you've been doing in here.

As someone who was raised in a Lutheran family and now celebrating my faith in the Catholic church, I know what I speak of. If there were any lurking untruths in here, I wouldn't be here. This church is for me, the real church, my former church would be best described as " Church Lite" If you're happy as a Lutheran then celebrate your faith as a Lutheran and quit wandering around in here. If you are searching for something more, then by all means, contact a local parish and see what we're really about and quite fighting with percieved demons among us.

You remind me of myself about ten or fifteen years ago. I was making the same kind of clanging gong noises around this church, when the spirit opened a door and everything was shone in a different light.

Don't be too hard on us, those words can be pretty hard to live down sometime down the road. You never know what God holds in store for you. In the meantime, try to remember that we're all on the same team, heading toward the same goal. We all want the Peace that salvation offers and we all have to choose our own path to get there.

Peace

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), December 06, 2003.

Dear FGC:
I reply to ''--Yet, the God of Abraham and Isaac is that Creator both mean to serve."
And, Who are they serving in the meantime?--''

Here: Who does an unfaithful believer in Christ, say, a Catholic! who will not repent of sin-- Or, a heretical sectarian, --serve in the meantime? They serve as their erroneous belief leads them to serve. It's not faith.

I only recognised the particular God of non- Christians. This is what the Church means.

Moslems & Jews have not found the true faith; but when an account of their religion is taken, it's the same God, missing Jesus Christ.

We must know Jesus Christ recognised the God of Abraham. (His Almighty Father.) So do present-day orthodox Jews and present-day Moslems. We aren't believing in any God from another planet.

Monothesists have rejected Jesus Christ to their eternal loss. But no one can say they rejected our God of the Old Testament. One faith has been solidly lodged in the Jewish psyche. The other faith is a sick faith, but still faith in the God of the Old Testament; Moslem faith in Allah.

We are hopeful both these peoples are never beyond reach of Christ's Holy Gospel, even if today they are in darkness. If only just a fragment of faithful can be redeemed someday out of these religions, they will give glory to God. Jesus Christ has come for their salvation as well as ours.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 06, 2003.

Hi Eugene,

These Jews are what we term Apostate Jews, because they did reject the Promised One of God. They worship or serve a figment of their imagination, not God. The Trinity can be found in the Old Testament eg. "Let Us make man in Our own Image". True Jews looked for and accepted the Messiah when He came. ie. They became Catholic.

As for the Moslem religion, it's a Christian heresy mostly comprised of pagan, Christian and Jewish elements. Their god Allah more resembles an Arabian moon god. A good reference would be the book The Great Heresies by Hilaire Belloc.

We need to keep praying for the conversion of the whole human race.

Following is some food for thought from a recent article by John Vennari.

The false gods of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam are "strange gods" that the First Commandment forbids all of mankind to worship.

This applies also to Protestantism, since Protestants believe in a Christ who never existed. They believe in a Christ who did not establish a Church to teach, govern and sanctify all men. They believe in a Christ who did not establish a Papacy. They believe in a Christ who does not want us to honor His Holy Mother Mary. (And we know from the Fatima Message that God wants to establish in the world devotion to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart). They believe in a Christ who did not establish seven Sacraments as the primary means of grace for salvation. They believe in a Christ who did not establish the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In short, Protestants worship a false Christ, that is, a false God. This is why Blessed Pope Pius IX taught in his 1864 Syllabus that it is an error to believe that "Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion."[1]

Thus, in the objective order, it is impossible for any non- Catholic, no matter how well-meaning, to obey the First Commandment. [2] We can thus understand why the Council of Trent spoke infallibly that without the Catholic Faith, "it is impossible to please God".

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), December 06, 2003.

Jeanie, From your note that told of your history with the ELCA and why you left, this Islamic thing seems to be a big issue for you. I am very sympathetic with a lot of what you wrote, but am a bit confused.

You mentioned the Athanasian Creed. The Athanasian Creed begins "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith." and at the end states "This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." So at the beginning and end it reaffirms the dogma, "Outside the Church, there is no salvation." The Church here mentioned is the Catholic Church, not the Lutheran church or any other church. See the excellent article "Athanasian Creed" in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, online at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

First some clearification (if it is still needed): What we Catholics believe is that there is only one way to God and that is through the teachings of the Church that Christ built. For it was the mechanism Christ put on earth for the purpose of salvation. The CCC states that Muslems believe in the same God of Abraham, that is true as far as it goes. Islam learned and adopted this truth from the Catholic Church and the Sacred Scriptures entrusted to Her. Even so, not only is the Islamic concept of God very limited but it is in error, since it denies the Holy Trinity of Persons and Divinity of Christ, among other things. Furthermore, Islam as a religion is false, both in practice and belief, even granting a vague notion of the one true God, borrowed from the Church.

As for the Catechism. The Catechism itself and as a whole has no guarantee of infallibility, except with regards to specific dogmas or doctrines contained therein which are themselves infallible by decree of the Church, in some manner. Short of this, one would not be obliged to accept as infallible that which has no guarantee of infallibility.

The definitive statement on the true meaning of the statement "outside the Church there is no salvation" is in a very important Vatican document "Dominus Jesus," which is magisterial, so all loyal Catholics must agree with it. see: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_c on_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Paul H and Bill.

Paul H, I might not go so far as to say that FGC was "bordering on heresy," but you were right to see that there was an error in what he said ("It doesn't matter ... if the Pope himself teaches X; if Scripture and Tradition don't teach X, then X is not Catholic teaching.") As you realize, the pope can teach things even if they are not apparent in Scripture or Tradition. Obviously, he cannot teaching things that are contrary to Scripture or Tradition.

Paul H, you also need not worry when a person who is ignorant of even a basic fact [e.g., the infallible proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption in 1950], tells you that "you [yourself] are" bordering on heresy, but "you'll get through it eventually."

At the end of my previous post, I stated, "As a pre-emptive strike, I'll just say to all 'lurkers' that if anyone now claims that I am wrong, you can be sure that he is not yet an informed, faithful Catholic, but someone who has chosen (or been taught) to believe less than he is required to believe."
My "pre-emptive strike," Paul, took out the weak weapons of the two people who disagreed with you. So you can consider their errors to be targets already destroyed in advance.

Paul H, you were given the following partially unacceptable and unhelpful comments:
"It IS in fact true, as you say, that there never has been a pope who has made a false statement concerning dogma which has been put forth as infallible, or binding upon the faithful, as a matter of dogma, to be believed by the Universal Church. ... BUT... The pope can in fact 'teach' something, NOT invoking his role as Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, NOT intending to declare or clarify dogma to the Universal Church, and make an error. ... Not everything ... the pope 'teaches' is infallible."

The reason I said that the above is "partially unacceptable" is that the Church has never taught the concept that follows the word, "BUT." It is an invention, a "tradition of men," something that one would expect to encounter only in protestantism.
Never, Paul, has the Church taught that "The pope can ... 'teach' ... an error" when he is not "intending to declare or clarify dogma to the Universal Church."
Where then does the above-quoted, "unacceptable" idea come from? It is an unwarranted assumption made by some folks who don't understand the dogma of infallibility correctly. They take what the dogma says and end up drawing an improper conclusion from it, for self-serving reasons.

For example, they would "reason" something like this:
"Since the Church says that the pope is prevented from teaching error when 'blah-blah-blah' conditions exist, then it must follow that, whenever one or more of those conditions does not exist, the pope can be teaching error and surely sometimes must be teaching error! Voila! Unless it is infallibly proclaimed as a dogma, I don't have to believe it -- or, in the case of morality, I don't have to practice it! I can just follow my opinion about whether he taught an error on a faith matter. I can just follow my conscience about whether he taught an error on a morality matter. This is great!!!"

As you can see, Paul H, this gives birth to "Call to Action" heresies, on the one hand, and other heresies of a very different type, on the other hand. The point is that we are not allowed to say that the pope can and/or sometimes does teach errors, because the Church has never taught this -- and I believe that the Church never will teach it.

I also said that what followed the word "BUT" in the quotation above was "unhelpful." It should be pretty obvious that, if someone draws from a dogma an unwarranted conclusion not taught by the Church, and if that conclusion plants the seeds of doubt about papal teachings in the minds of the millions of Catholics who cannot see through the fallcay, this is "unhelpful" indeed. It damages those poor people's efforts to live out the universal vocation to holiness.

Paul H, please join me in ignoring the content and offensiveness of the following supercilious statement from the misguiding person whose own errors I have just now demonstrated twice: "Son of a gun, I wish you people would take the time to understand infallibility."

Bill, I agree with most of what you wrote above. However, the following segment contains (1) a clause and (2) a sentence which I believe to be erroneous:
"The Catechism itself and as a whole has no guarantee of infallibility, except with regards to specific dogmas or doctrines contained therein which are themselves infallible by decree of the Church, in some manner. Short of this, one would not be obliged to accept as infallible that which has no guarantee of infallibility."

(1) The Church teaches differently from what your "except" clause states. In fact, the Catechism contains at least hundreds (if not thousands) of infallible teachings besides those specifically defined as "infallible by decree of the Church." Almost all of what the Church teaches infallibly is infallible through the "Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church," [U&OM] not through extraordinary pronouncements (papal or conciliar).

Now the Church has not listed all the doctrines that are infallible through the U&OM. Nor has she frequently come forward and said, "Doctrine X is infallible through the U&OM]," but a recent case in which she did so is that of the pope's recent teaching on reservation of priestly ordination to males.

(2) If follows, then, that the last sentence I quoted ("Short of this") must be wrong -- or at least needs to be understood differently. I think that it would help for me to reiterate what I stated two days ago, above:

"Whatever any given person suspects about a given teaching in a Catechism -- that is, that the teaching may be "infallible" or not -- is completely irrelevant. All that matters is that it is a magisterial teaching -- from which various things follow, including these:
--- We are required, under pain of sin, to "adhere to [the teaching] with a religious assent," with "religious submission of mind and will."
--- We are to acknowledge that it either is already an infallible teaching or could some day be proclaimed as one.
--- We are forbidden to claim that the teaching is or contains error.

It seems to me, Bill, that you have tacitly agreed with what I stated (and now repeated) when you just now wrote these words: "The definitive statement on the true meaning of the statement 'outside the Church there is no salvation' is in a very important Vatican document, 'Dominus Jesus,' which is magisterial, so all loyal Catholics must agree with it."

What we all need to realize is that, just as much as "Dominus Jesus," the whole Catechism is "a very important Vatican document ... which is magisterial, so all loyal Catholics must [give a 'religious assent' to every teaching within] it."

It does not matter in the slightest if we know that a specific CCC teaching has been declared "infallible," if we know that it has not yet been declared so, or if we suspect that it may not be correct. According to the Church's teaching, we still must humbly "adhere to [that teaching] with a religious assent," with "religious submission of mind and will." As Catholics, we don't wait for a "guarantee of infallibility" before assenting.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Here we go again. Honestly, this is getting boring even for me.

John says:

Paul H, you also need not worry when a person who is ignorant of even a basic fact [e.g., the infallible proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption in 1950], tells you that "you [yourself] are" bordering on heresy, but "you'll get through it eventually."

Well, take a look again, John. I know that you constantly remind people to read your posts carefully, so naturally I would expect the same from you. Here's what I wrote above:

"When is the last a pope said something infallible? How about this:

In the year of Our Lord 1854 in the Bull Ineffabilis, Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Thank you, Pope Puis IX):

"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful".

That was the most recent, right? Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Have there been any more recent than this?"

Is it really ignorance of a fact, or am I fishing for a reponse?

Thanks for biting. The document is Munificentissismus Deus, 1950, and the exact place in that document where the infallible Ex Cathedra statement is to be found, and the exact line in the document which IS the infallible, Ex Cathedra statement is as follows:

44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:

that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

Alright. There you have it, again, those same words... "we pronounce, declare, and define..." What's defined is the underlined.

That's what constitutes DOGMATIC.

Hello? Where do we find the use of "we pronounce, declare, and define..." in Vatican II?

It's not a dogmatic council, Vatican II. It just isn't. Anything in Vatican II which is already-known doctrine requires our assent, as it always has. Nothing has changed. Anything new which isn't previously known doctrine does not require our assent.

There is nothing new in Catholicism. It is, in and of itself, the "NOVI ET ETERNI TESTATMENTI", or, the "New and Eternal Testament".

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 06, 2003.

This is NOT to say that if something has not been dogmatically defined, that it doesn't require our assent.

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were always held to be the doctrine of the Catholic Church throughout it's history.

I won't have anyone try to make the false case that I actually believe that only Ex Cathedra statements are to be believed, because I don't think that, and it isn't true.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 06, 2003.

"Anything in Vatican II which is already-known doctrine requires our assent, as it always has. Nothing has changed. Anything new which isn't previously known doctrine does not require our assent."

A: Not exactly. First, the phrase "is infallible" is not synonymous with the phrase "was defined ex cathedra". Anything that was defined ex cathedra is, of course, infallible; but not any more so than the rest of the church's doctrinal truths which never had cause to be defined ex cathedra. ALL of the Church's doctrine is infallible - "whatsoever" the Church binds on earth - not just the few dogmas that have been defined ex cathedra. An ex cathedra pronouncement does not make a doctrine infallible. It explains the precise meaning of a doctrine which is ALREADY infallible as an element of the deposit of faith. Your statement "anything in Vatican II which is already-known doctrine requires our assent" would suggest that you realize this. However, if you do understand this, I don't know why you would ask, "When is the last time a Pope said something infallible?", followed by a dissertation on past ex cathedra pronouncements. The last time a Pope made an ex cathedra statement is NOT the last time a Pope spoke infallibly. Every time a Pope re-presents any doctrine of the faith, he is speaking infallibly, and we are bound, as you said, to give our assent to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING doctrinal which the Church teaches - ex cathedra dogmas included, but no more so than any other doctrinal truths.

Secondly, while we are required to give our assent to all doctrinal teaching, doctrinal teaching is not the only thing that REQUIRES our assent. We are also bound to give our full assent to binding disciplines required by the authority of the Church, which is the authority of Christ Himself. Obviously Vatican II did not define any doctrine ex cathedra. That however does NOT mean that Catholics are therefore not bound by the decisions of the Council. If the Church requires attendance at Mass on a certain day, we MUST attend Mass that day. If the Church states that a certain day is a day of fast or abstinence, we MUST give our assent to that ruling, and comply. If the Church mandates that we sit or stand during a particular part of the Mass, we MUST do so. These are not doctrinal issues. They are not infallible statements; but assent to the God-given authority of the Magisterium and the Pope in ALL matters under their jurisdiction defines life as a Catholic.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 06, 2003.

Emerald,

Just saw your last post after posting mine. Good! I didn't think otherwise; however, my second paragraph is also a matter of concern.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 06, 2003.

Hi John, The Catechism is just that, a catechism. It trys to summarize the teachings of the Church. But not every word in it is infallable. The Catechism relies on infallable documents for strength but the Catechism as a whole is simply a teaching tool. And as such can contain errors, that is why it was recently updated. Faith and morals in the Church do not change, but the Catechism does to try to teach those faith and morals to the faithful in words the faithful can understand. Sometimes it misses the mark.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Thanks for the response Paul; I was a little worried I would have my input tossed out by you not because you are unfair but because yes, the nature of the topic is probably the very heart of controversy between traditionalist Catholics and the Catholics of Vatican II. I don't mean to provocatively create a hostility by pitching those two tents of trad/post-conciliar, but I have to use something to identify the fact that the division exists, no matter what the nature of the division might actually be.

I know that you and I differ, that you might presume me to be not in step with the Church, and that I would consider you a modernist to some degree or another. In total, so much of what you say is a very solid defense of Catholicism, and I for my part think you have been more than fair and patient as moderator; I'm speaking the truth and not trying to draw up allies or enemies: I mean what I'm saying here.

Someday I would really like to try the case of the current understanding of the excercise of the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church in use today, and make the case that it contains a dangerous element of error, or let's say an element of assumption of a thing that's not really there. By extension, also that there are dangerous assumptions in common use today as to how it is that the Holy Ghost exerts His influence and guidance upon the Church.

I'm aware that you are something of a charismatic Catholic, and that at least on these matters that you stand on the opposite side of the fence from me and other traditionalists, and being moderator I know this makes discussion a bit difficult.

Your job is thankless enough, and in all honesty I don't want to make it any harder than it already is for you, as I don't envy you right now. On the other hand, I think it's an important discussion. Without a doubt, by nature it's as contentious a discussion as they come.

I can certainly appreciate your desire not to have me enter into these same discussion of every thread, and I apologize for having over-exerted my input. On the other hand, I would think it most ecumenical to allow the traditionalist Catholics their open voice on the forum.

I would like to discuss this issue if you would allow it, perhaps in another or new thread. I realize I can be difficult and a bit unruly, but it really is my intention to adhere to the Catholic Faith and to defend it. I also want to do the right thing by the forum and you it's moderator. While it doesn't really bother me much, I do realize that I'm not this forum's most loved poster, to make an understatement. All this has me a bit torn, as you might imagine.

But sometime in the future, I would like to tackle the above issue without worrying about deletions, which in all honesty, I haven't had that much of happen to me. Could we do this?

John, when I see the strategy in use of degrading the opponent with an eye to gaining favor and status with the audience, what I'm going to do is to simply blow by said strategy and continue on to the point. Each and every time. Nor will I be returning vollies.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 06, 2003.

"The definitive statement on the true meaning of the statement "outside the Church there is no salvation" is in a very important Vatican document "Dominus Jesus," which is magisterial, so all loyal Catholics must agree with it. see: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_c on_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html "

Hi Bill,

I thought your post was good, but I just want to point out that there's no defined statement in Dominus Jesus which would make it fall under Solemn Magisterium if there were. Any Solemn definition has to follow a certain formula. The closest Pope John Paul II has come to making a Solemn pronouncement is his statement on women priests (which only left out the anathema). This document Dominus Jesus does come from the Authentic Magisterium, but does not fall under Universal Ordinary Magisterium unless it agrees with what has been believed everywhere by everyone at all times. Loyal Catholics can not agree with anything that goes against the Solemn or Ordinary Magisterium. (They have to agree with anything in Dominus Jesus which does agree with the Solemn or Universal Magisterium).

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), December 07, 2003.

FGC stated: “thought your post was good, but I just want to point out that there's no defined statement in Dominus Jesus which would make it fall under Solemn Magisterium if there were. Any Solemn definition has to follow a certain formula. The closest Pope John Paul II has come to making a Solemn pronouncement is his statement on women priests (which only left out the anathema). This document Dominus Jesus does come from the Authentic Magisterium, but does not fall under Universal Ordinary Magisterium unless it agrees with what has been believed everywhere by everyone at all times.”

Watch out here… lately, Rome seldom attaches the words "anathema sit" to the pronouncement of a dogma that must be accepted.

“Dominus Jesus" is magistarial when it restates that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. The Church has always taught and still teaches, that it is the only vehicle of salvation. As the document itself states in the introduction: “The expository language of the Declaration corresponds to its purpose, which is not to treat in a systematic manner the question of the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ and the Church, nor to propose solutions to questions that are matters of free theological debate, but rather to set forth again the doctrine of the Catholic faith in these areas, pointing out some fundamental questions that remain open to further development, and refuting specific positions that are erroneous or ambiguous. For this reason, the Declaration takes up what has been taught in previous Magisterial documents, in order to reiterate certain truths that are part of the Church's faith.”

Here's some history:

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved.” – Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” – Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.

“[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire ‘prepared for the devil, and his angels’ (Matthew 25:41), unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the Ecclesiastical body is such that the Church’s Sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, alms, deeds, and other works of piety which play their part in Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ’s sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” – Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739. Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 07, 2003.

Jmj

Thank you, Paul M, for that outstanding addition to the conversation. If only every Catholic could read, understand, believe, and follow what you wrote, the world would be transformed. Unfortunately, you have encountered two people who can read and understand your words, but lack the necessary faith to believe and follow it. Instead, they consider what you have written to be "modernism," and they would have us orthodox Catholics believe an error-laden theology that the Church does not teach.

I want to apologize for a slip I made. When I made reference to the proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption in 1950, it was in response to what I thought was a claim that the last time any pope had ("ex cathedra") defined a dogma was in 1854. I missed the fact that the actual erroneous phrase was, "the last a pope said something infallible". As you basically pointed out, "the last [time] a pope [merely] said something infallible" was earlier today!

Paul M, you were just told this: "Anything in Vatican II which is already-known doctrine requires our assent, as it always has. Nothing has changed. Anything new which isn't previously known doctrine does not require our assent."

The bolded words are an error. As your words make clear, every teaching in Vatican II (whether it seems old or "new" to someone) "require[s] our assent."

Paul, you wrote: "Just saw your last post after posting mine. Good! I didn't think otherwise ..."

Ah, but what was said was not "good" enough, because it did not go nearly far enough, as you quickly learned. You have now been reminded by your correspondent's subsequent message that he will not assent to some, perhaps many, things (as yet unlisted) to which you and I know assent is due (simply because the Church teaches them).

Paul, you were also told: "I was a little worried I would have my input tossed out by you not because you are unfair but because yes, the nature of the topic is probably the very heart of controversy between traditionalist Catholics and the Catholics of Vatican II. I don't mean to provocatively create a hostility by pitching those two tents of trad/post-conciliar ..."

Paul, what was stated earlier in the thread need not be "tossed out," but the entire post that contains these words (that I've just quoted) needs to be "tossed out," because it goes against your absolute rejection of any more debates of the kind that have nearly fatally wounded this forum. You are trying to save the forum from extinction, so any further debates are forbidden, you said. Even the above use of the words, "controversy between traditionalist Catholics and Catholics of Vatican II ... trad/post-conciliar" is dishonest and provocative, demonstrating the need to delete the entire post.

You were soon told: "Someday I would really like to try the case of the current understanding of the excercise of the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church in use today, and make the case that it contains a dangerous element of error, or let's say an element of assumption of a thing that's not really there."

Paul, I urge you firmly to say, in keeping with your recent ruling: "No, that 'someday' has come and gone -- dozens of times already. No renewal of the same debate will be permitted."

And you were then told: "Your job is thankless enough, and in all honesty I don't want to make it any harder than it already is for you, as I don't envy you right now. On the other hand, I think it's an important discussion. Without a doubt, by nature it's as contentious a discussion as they come."

No matter how much "buttering up" is used to tempt you, Paul, I urge you firmly to say, in keeping with your recent ruling: "For the sake of the forum and the spiritual and mental health of orthodox Catholics, never again will this 'discussion' (i.e., rancorous debate) be had here."

And then you were told: "I can certainly appreciate your desire not to have me enter into these same discussion of every thread, and I apologize for having over-exerted my input. On the other hand, I would think it most ecumenical to allow the traditionalist Catholics their open voice on the forum."

Paul, I urge you firmly to say, in keeping with your recent ruling: "No, not even on one thread. Never again. The 'discussion' -- i.e., debate of orthodox v. heterodox -- has been held many times and can be read in the archives by interested parties."

You encountered further persistence: "I would like to discuss this issue if you would allow it, perhaps in another or new thread. I realize I can be difficult and a bit unruly, but it really is my intention to adhere to the Catholic Faith and to defend it."

Paul, I urge you firmly to say, in keeping with your recent ruling: "No. What you will 'adhere to' is not really the 'Catholic Faith,' as orthodox Catholics already know from dozens of past debates."

And one final again, you were harried: "... But sometime in the future, I would like to tackle the above issue without worrying about deletions, which in all honesty, I haven't had that much of happen to me. Could we do this?"

Paul, I urge you firmly to say, in keeping with your recent ruling: "Absolutely not. The forum must be rescued, not further degraded and endangered. Lurkers must never again be exposed to such dangerous dissent. Orthodox Catholics must never again be required to waste hours refuting these errors."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 07, 2003.

Jmj

Good day, FGC:
You told Bill ...
"... there's no defined statement in Dominus Jesus which would make it fall under Solemn Magisterium if there were. Any Solemn definition has to follow a certain formula."

You are incorrect. The Church has never published a specific formula that a pope or Council must follow for the definition of a dogma or for something that must be regarded as infallibly taught. The late, great theologian and scripture scholar, Father William Most, has written about this conclusively. But, anyway, Bill did not state that "Dominus Jesus" proclaims a "solemn definition." He said that it has "magisterial" statements -- i.e., authentic teachings from the pope.

FGC, you then stated:
"The closest Pope John Paul II has come to making a Solemn pronouncement is his statement on women priests (which only left out the anathema)."

No "anathema" is required. The mere fact that anathemas have been used in the past does not mean that they must be used ever again. As the CDF explained later, the pope's statement about reservation of priesthood to men was infallible by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium [O&UM].

You then stated:
"This document Dominus Jesus does come from the Authentic Magisterium, but does not fall under Universal Ordinary Magisterium unless it agrees with what has been believed everywhere by everyone at all times. Loyal Catholics can not agree with anything that goes against the Solemn or Ordinary Magisterium. (They have to agree with anything in Dominus Jesus which does agree with the Solemn or Universal Magisterium). "

I have no doubt that "Dominus Jesus" is infallible by the O&UM. However, even if you are not sure about that, you must still assent to every teaching in "Dominus Jesus." That's part of what being a "loyal Catholic" means.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 07, 2003.

Jmj

Good day, Bill.
I am really saddened to have to oppose you here. I didn't realize that you held any improper beliefs about Catholicism. I noticed that you quoted from the "National Catholic [sic] Reporter" in another thread. Perhaps that hererodox periodical has taught you a false idea, or perhaps you picked it up elsewhere.

You wrote: "The Catechism is just that, a catechism. It trys to summarize the teachings of the Church."

No, Bill. The "CCC" is not just an ordinary catechism. It is straight from the pope and his brother bishops, seven years in the making. It is magisterial. It teaches. As the pope said, it is a "reliable compendium of doctrine. It doesn't just "try to summarize the teachings of the Church." It succeeds in teaching many details about every key doctrine of the Church -- and goes far beyond just the key doctrines into many hundreds of "subordinate" doctrines.

You wrote: "But not every word in it is infallable."

As I explained earlier by me, it is not your place to make this judgment, and anyway such a judgment is irrelevant, because we are still required to assent to every teaching in the Catechism.

You wrote: "The Catechism ... is simply a teaching tool. And as such can contain errors, that is why it was recently updated. ... Sometimes it misses the mark."

No. I'm afraid that you are mistaken. The Church has never told us that the CCC "can contain errors" in any of its teachings. We know that it can contain errors in things that are not teachings (e.g., spelling/grammar, translation, opinions, prudential judgments). Originally published in 1992 in French, the final, authoritative edition in Latin came out in 1997 with modifications. The Church did not say that these were corrections of errors in teachings, and we are not authorized to say that the original edition taught anything erroneous.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 07, 2003.

Sorry. I left out one thing, Bill.
I just told you this: "... we are ... required to assent to every teaching in the Catechism."

In case your reaction is to disagree with that, you need to read #25 of "Lumen gentium" (of Vatican II). I am just passing along to you what that article of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church teaches us.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 07, 2003.

John, Are you saying that the Catechism must be believed in all it says on Faith and Morals because it is the work of the Bishops? If so, I can buy into that. Although I don't know if it is infallable because the English translation has been revised, albeit it was revised because it needed to be clearified and people were being led into error, but it was revised. The section on homosexuality comes to mind.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 07, 2003.

John, On the NCR, the only section I read faithfully is John Allen's reporting. When I can find such inside reporting somewhere else I will probably let it go, but so far I can't find it. I understand Allen has his secular bent, but keeping that in mind, he does give insights on what is going on in the Vatican I can find no where else on a weekly basis.... the rest of the magazine, as far as I am concerned is liberal propaganda.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 07, 2003.

john, to get back on topic now that the jeanie dilema has removed itself...

Paul H, I might not go so far as to say that FGC was "bordering on heresy,"

the reason i said FGC was bordering on heresy is not because he stated that if the pope teaches x, then x is not necessarily true...

i said it because the next step in that line of thought is "even though the pope dogmatically declares X, does not make x true." This is the thin line that FGC was walking along.

FURTHERMORE, we are NOT only required to follow ex cathedra dogmatic statements, but all teachings of the church. ex cathedra holds a special place of infallibility garunteed, but that does NOT mean we are not bound to follow the other teachings of the church (condoms, abortion, cloning, etc) which may also be inspired by the Holy Spirit but not specifically written in ex cathedra form.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 07, 2003.

"FURTHERMORE, we are NOT only required to follow ex cathedra dogmatic statements, but all teachings of the church."

Did anyone say that we weren't?

I certainly didn't. I didn't see anyone else say that either.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 07, 2003.

Hi Bill,

"Watch out here… lately, Rome seldom attaches the words "anathema sit" to the pronouncement of a dogma that must be accepted. "

I just want to clarify why anathemas are important to ex cathedra statements. I found this source.

Papal Infallibility was defined by the First Vatican Council of 1870 as the dogma that the Pope, when he solemnly defines a matter of faith and morals ex cathedra (that is, officially and as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church), does not have the possibility of error.

Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv, holds:

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.

The conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as spiritual head of the Church universal, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian.

He must be teaching some doctrine of faith or morals in a manner that explicitly and solemnly defines an issue.

His teaching cannot contradict anything the Church has taught officially and previously. It may clarify and explain, but never alter what has come before.

It must be evident that he intends to teach with his supreme Apostolic authority. In other words, he must convey his wish to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way. There are well-recognized formulas that are used to express this intention, such as "We declare, decree and define, . . .".

It must be clear that the Pope intends to bind the whole Church. Unless the Pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he is assumed to not intend his teaching to be ex cathedra and infallible.

There will be an anathema attached to the definition that outlines consequences for not assenting to it. For ex., in Pope Pius XII's infallible definition regarding the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, there is attached these words, "Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

Ex cathedra solemn definitions made as above (or by a Council convened and confirmed by a Pope) are said to be an exercise of the "Extraordinary Magisterium" (also called the "Solemn Magisterium").

The only other statements of the Pope that are infallible are statements that simply reiterate what has been handed down by the apostles and has always been taught by the Church. These infallible statements are said to exercise the "Universal Magisterium" (also called the "Constant Magisterium").

Statements that exercise neither the Universal Magisterium nor the Extraordinary Magisterium (i.e., statements that do not simply reiterate what has always been taught or which are not solemn definitions expressed ex cathedra) are not infallible, and are said to be an exercise of the merely authentic Magisterium (i.e., "authoritative" Magisterium). Such teaching is also to be obeyed as long as it does not contradict infallible Magisterium and does not harm the faith or lead to sin.

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), December 07, 2003.

That's pretty darn clear.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 07, 2003.

" In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.17 The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church." from:DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.

Bill and Paul H, thanks for your clarifications (Bill on the NCR / Allen ... Paul H on what you said to FGC about heresy).

Bill you wrote to me: "Are you saying that the Catechism must be believed in all it says on Faith and Morals because it is the work of the Bishops? If so, I can buy into that."

I am saying that, if you change the last words of your question into ...
"... work of the bishops in union with the pope, who approved and promulgated the published text."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.

"That's pretty darn clear."

It would be "pretty darn clear" ... if it were accurate.
However, it is from a secular encyclopedia, and it contains an error on the very subject of our controversy -- the alleged need for an anathema. For some strange reason, the author of the "wikipedia" article falsely attributes to Vatican I [specifically to chapter 4 of the Constitution on the Christ's Church] a claim that there must be an anathema.

Anyone can see for himself that there is no such requirement, by reading the text here. (If that complex URL produces a bad link, try this one, and scroll down to Chapter 4.

Now, if anyone, after reading Vatican I, still claims that an anathema should be used, he would have to admit that the use of an anathema is not part of the dogma of infallibility itself, but a custom that a pope has the power to change or delete.

Bill, many of the people who read your post will owe you a debt of gratitude for that quotation from the "Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the 'Professio Fidei'" -- because so many have no inkling about the existence of this basic form of infallibility exercised by the successors of the Apostles. It was on the basis of the very words that you quoted that I said earlier that the hundreds (thousands?) of doctrinal statements in the Catechism are infallible -- through the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.

Sorry, I forgot to make clear that the top half of my last post was referring to what FGC quoted from his linked site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Infallibility).
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.

Hi Bill,

I'm not sure what your post has to do with the requirements for solemn pronouncements. Could you simplify it for me? Does that say anathemas are not to be used? Has there ever been any solemn ex cathedra pronouncements that haven't used some form of an anathema?

Thanks. FGC

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), December 08, 2003.

Jmj
FGC, have you ever thought about the following? ...

Many people have a tendency to say that there have been only two "ex cathedra" papal declarations: in 1854 and 1950.

Think about how incredible such an idea really is -- that from Pope St. Peter I (around 30 A.D.) until Pope Bl. Pius IX (in 1854), NO pope ever used his Extraordinary Magisterium (ex cathedra teaching authority) solemnly to teach the Catholic Church a truth. Although I couldn't tick off a list for you of such "solemn ex cathedra pronouncements" (to use your words), I have no doubt at all that some (perhaps many) were made through the centuries. And ... I have no doubt that some (perhaps most) had no "anathema" attached.

My understanding is that each and every canonization of a saint by a pope (and there have been many hundreds since the 10th century) is a "solemn ex cathedra pronouncement" that infallibly assures us that a certain person is in heaven. Yet never (to my knowledge) has there been a bull of canonization that ends with an anathema!

What I'm trying to say is that you are chasing after the wind. I have already proved that your secular source was in error -- by showing that Vatican I did not require an anathema. One gets the unpleasant feeling that you are hungry to condemn people. ("Gotta have that anathema, dammit!")

I suggest that you drop this, FGC, because it is an unproductive line of inquiry. (But that's only a suggestion, not a demand.)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 09, 2003.

From a Catholic source (The Catholic Encyclopedia)

what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).

the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.

infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher ar allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).

Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.

Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin.

Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), December 09, 2003.

Thanks, FGC.
That's very good information.
I hope that you didn't think that I contradicted it in any way.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 10, 2003.

That's nice to hear. As we all know, The Catholic Encyclopedia is infallible ;) God bless, FGC

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), December 10, 2003.

FGC, John surely did contradict your post. Guess he can't read.

-- Geta Life (inapigs@eye.com), December 11, 2003.

"Guess he can't read."

Guess you have no brains or guts, "Geta Life."
Guess you can't produce what I said that allegedly "contradicts" the Encyclopedia.
Guess you don't have the courage to give your name.
Guess you don't have the good character spend time working on a legitimate post instead of a childish one-liner.
Guess everyone knows that they should ignore turkeys like you.

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 11, 2003.

top

top

-- Geta Life (inapigs@eye.com), December 13, 2003.