Ask A Catholic III

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

In the original catholic encyclopedia (online) and many catholic churches I've saw the symbol lettering IHS as the letters for Jesus Christ

taken from OCE site::
IHS, a monogram of the name of Jesus Christ. From the third century the names of our Savior are sometimes shortened, particularly in Christian inscriptions (IH and XP, for Jesus and Christus). In the next century the "sigla" (chi-rho) occurs not only as an abbreviation but also as a Symbol.


YET from long before the 3rd century this stood and still stands for the egyptian trinity of ISIS HORUS and SETH..... (it's horus's eye in the capstone on our great seal of the united states on back of dollar bill)...... For one (AOL's blue icon etc)

So my question is.... Why has your church adopted this IHS?

Also we know from acts 7:43 that the star of David is only a rename of star of remphan and God condems it non the less....

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

According to eph 2:8

We are SAVED by GRACE through FAITH.

But your church teaches that this is not enough, in effect calling this verse a lie and God a liar.

Now unless I'm wrong your church teaches without the RCC you have no salvation.....

Could you clarify your churches stand and why it differs from the word?

[Catholica]

In the original catholic encyclopedia (online) and many catholic churches I've saw the symbol lettering IHS as the letters for Jesus Christ

taken from OCE site::
IHS, a monogram of the name of Jesus Christ. From the third century the names of our Savior are sometimes shortened, particularly in Christian inscriptions (IH and XP, for Jesus and Christus). In the next century the "sigla" (chi-rho) occurs not only as an abbreviation but also as a Symbol.


YET from long before the 3rd century this stood and still stands for the egyptian trinity of ISIS HORUS and SETH..... (it's horus's eye in the capstone on our great seal of the united states on back of dollar bill)...... For one (AOL's blue icon etc)

So my question is.... Why has your church adopted this IHS?

Also we know from acts 7:43 that the star of David is only a rename of star of remphan and God condems it non the less....

I would go with the Catholic Encyclopedia's description and not Jack Chick's.

BTW the eye on the capstone is a Masonic Symbol.

[LightHammer]

According to eph 2:8

We are SAVED by GRACE through FAITH.

But your church teaches that this is not enough, in effect calling this verse a lie and God a liar.

Now unless I'm wrong your church teaches without the RCC you have no salvation.....

Could you clarify your churches stand and why it differs from the word?

Hey KB,

Actually know there is no such doctrine teaching that you need the RCC for salvation. It's kind of a silly sentiment. Could you maybe share with me where you got such an idea?

We agree that salvation comes by grace through faith. Nothing new about that one. The differences you will notice between Catholic doctrine and "some" Protestant theology is how we define the word faith. Catholic doctrine emphasizes the teachings of St. James in that faith is belief together with works or rather belief in action. Protestants normatively (speaking from my own studies and experiences) defines faith as exclusively equivalent to belief. This leads to a breakdown between the two schools of theological thought.

[Teresa]

According to eph 2:8

We are SAVED by GRACE through FAITH.

But your church teaches that this is not enough, in effect calling this verse a lie and God a liar.

Now unless I'm wrong your church teaches without the RCC you have no salvation.....

Could you clarify your churches stand and why it differs from the word?

The Catholic Church has never said that Grace is not enough.  What the contention has been and will always be is against "Faith Alone" i.e. we are saved by faith alone.

The Church affirms this teaching that we are saved by grace through faith working in love.  And there is much Biblical basis for this.

As Paul himself said: faith, hope and love remain, but the greatest is love.
Furthermore Christ Himself said that it is not those who call Him Lord, Lord who will be saved but those who do the will of His Father. He also said that it is those who practice acts of charitity (feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc) who will enter His kingdom.

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

In 2008, the Vatican newspaper said young Harry "...proposes a wrong and malicious image of the hero, an unreligious one, which is even worst that an explicitly anti-religious proposition."


In its review of the latest film Half blood prince, L'Osservatore Romano — the Vatican's official newspaper — praised this latest cinematic adaptation of J.K. Rowling's work (written by Steve Kloves and directed by David Yates) as being the best one yet, highlighting its distinct moral compass:

"There is a clear line of demarcation between good and evil and [the film] makes clear that good is right. One understands as well that sometimes this requires hard work and sacrifice."

KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:

1. All magic comes from Satan
2. All magic is evil
3. Your church calls harrys magic good

The bible tells us "woe to those who call evil good and good evil, that put darkness for light!(Is 5:20)



The movies entice children into the devils world of WITCHCRAFT spells demons (the DEMENtors)ect.

I don't come to ask you questions, just want you to hear it! As a member of the RCC.

God says all witchcraft is evil - the church disagrees.


Why the change of heart over potter from 2008 till this movie with favorable rant.

The church saw it was more profitable to bring mr Potter on board!

Aye aye captian! A modern day fornication with withcraft!

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

According to eph 2:8

We are SAVED by GRACE through FAITH.

But your church teaches that this is not enough, in effect calling this verse a lie and God a liar.

Now unless I'm wrong your church teaches without the RCC you have no salvation.....

Could you clarify your churches stand and why it differs from the word?

The Catholic Church has never said that Grace is not enough.  What the contention has been and will always be is against "Faith Alone" i.e. we are saved by faith alone.

The Church affirms this teaching that we are saved by grace through faith working in love.  And there is much Biblical basis for this.

As Paul himself said: faith, hope and love remain, but the greatest is love.
Furthermore Christ Himself said that it is not those who call Him Lord, Lord who will be saved but those who do the will of His Father. He also said that it is those who practice acts of charitity (feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc) who will enter His kingdom.

2. Going back in time as early as the days of the Athanasian Creed, it was taught then that "Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity." (Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 39)

3. About 585 A.D., Pope Pelagius II infallibly stated, "If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know that he is condemned and also anathematized (means excommunicated) according to the opinion of the same Fathers... Consider (therefore) the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church, cannot have the Lord. [Gal. 3:7]" (Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 246)
4. In 1208 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, "By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, catholic, and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved." (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 423)

5. In 1215 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved..." (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 430)

6. In 1302 A.D., Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated, "With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sins..." (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 468)
8. In 1302 A.D., by the power invested in him, Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated, "...we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 469)

9. In 1442 A.D, Pope Eugenius IV, 1442, at the Council of Florence, reaffirmed this truth. "It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 714)

10. The same truth regarding the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation was reaffirmed by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832 A.D.; Pope Pius IX in 1854 A.D.; Pope Pius IX in 1863 A.D.; Pope John XXIII on June 29, 1961 A.D.; Pope John Paul I, on August 27, 1978; Pope John Paul II on October 21, 1981, etc...

OH did I have that WRONG?!?

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

Now unless this is incorrect:

61. While affirming that "Outside the Church there is no salvation," (C.C.C. # 846), the Catechism of the Catholic Church further states, "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

'Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.'" (C.C.C. # 847)


KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:

WOW....
There's no salvation outside the catholic church but that's only for other Christians.

No it seems that you can be of any religion (doesn't know the gospel) and have any god and as long as your sincere to do HIS will (whoever your god and his will be) he has salvation!!!!

Incredible!!!! Anyone has eternal life even without Christ!

No one can do Gods will without knowing Christ as savior!


This is a lie and the word does not teach that! 

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

Catholica said:

BTW the eye on the capstone is a Masonic Symbol.

KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:

the capstone is egyptian and is the missing capstone for the pyramid of Giza.
The eye is also Egyptian and is the eye of horus. Who's the middle virgin child of the egyptian trinity.

They go by the initals IHS (Isis Horus Seth.)
I know the catholic church uses these same initals (ihs ihc)
and give it another meaning but I'll stick with the egyptian trinity for your IHS also... Oh I don't get my information from Jack chick either.... Isn't there an Egyptian obelisk in saint peters sq?

Why yes yes there is.  My moneys on Egypt...

You know it's funny you would think the capstone and eye come from the masons... And the pyramid under said capstone and eye.... Would make you say Egypt wouldn't it?!?

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

See the reason your church let's the rest of the world off the hook and NOT the Christians is the devil knows it's only the christian that is both saved and has the truth!

This would make all those outside the catholic church who DIDNT know Christ Able to have salvation while Christians are damned.....

It's not good enough to believe on Christ, you must be catholic or Christ what?

A. Ignores you
B. Hands are tied by the RCC


See you come on here to defend a church that considers grace through faith we are saved NOT true... (making me a hell bound sinner.... Friends... Us?) its one thing to believe and another to teach that belief....)
Oh you say your church teaches it but you can't teach that AND say there's only salvation through you alone!  2+3 doesn't equal 4.

Truth be told, when Catholics (church) talk of one bread one body they certainly ARENT talking about anything other than their bread their body their way... After all how could you count other Christians as brothers in the body when they have no salvation?


What does light have to do with darkness?

[Scott1]

See the reason your church let's the rest of the world off the hook and NOT the Christians is the devil knows it's only the christian that is both saved and has the truth!

This would make all those outside the catholic church who DIDNT know Christ Able to have salvation while Christians are damned.....

It's not good enough to believe on Christ, you must be catholic or Christ what?

A. Ignores you
B. Hands are tied by the RCC


See you come on here to defend a church that considers grace through faith we are saved NOT true... (making me a hell bound sinner.... Friends... Us?) its one thing to believe and another to teach that belief....)
Oh you say your church teaches it but you can't teach that AND say there's only salvation through you alone!  2+3 doesn't equal 4.

Truth be told, when Catholics (church) talk of one bread one body they certainly ARENT talking about anything other than their bread their body their way... After all how could you count other Christians as brothers in the body when they have no salvation?


What does light have to do with darkness?

Hiya KB ... you must be reading a different thread than I am reading.

The RCC does not teach that you have to be Catholic to be saved.

I would suggest that you remember that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ - working out our salvation in fear and trembling.

Peace be with you,
Scott

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

Scott1 said:

Hiya KB ... you must be reading a different thread than I am reading.

The RCC does not teach that you have to be Catholic to be saved.

I would suggest that you remember that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ - working out our salvation in fear and trembling.

KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:

this came from Vatican.Va
under:
Lumen gentium

Chapter 2
on the people of god:

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation.

END END END

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

Taken from Vatican.va

under declartions
Nostradamus aerate
relations of the church to non Christians:

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.


END END END


KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:

well we see that the catholic church teaches that Moslems have salvation if their serve the demon god Allah!  The catholic church teaches that all who don't know the gospel (all unsaved pagans) can be saved by simply doing their gods will!!!!!

How evil is it to let others believe they have salvation and never tell them that unless they have the blood of Christ they have no salvation.....

Can you answer to this?

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God,

END END END

KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:

their God is Allah... This is not the God of the bible is any way shape or form!

Allah is from Satan and your popes talks that Moslems pray to the one god?

You mean Satan? Right. Cause that's who they pray too!

[Scott1]

this came from Vatican.Va
under:
Lumen gentium

Chapter 2
on the people of god:

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation.

END END END

Ya gotta read the document --- not just post quotes taken out of context.

LG 14
"Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

... in other words, for those people who believe in the validity of the claims of the Catholic Church and still refuse to enter or stay in they can not be saved --- their conscience condems them.  It would be the same for someone who believes in the claims of the Protestant Church but still denies Jesus is Lord/says the salvation prayer (or whatever you folks believe is necessary for salvation).  For a person to fight against what they know in their heart is the truth, they have no hope of salvation.


... but it is also important to learn that all Catholics are not ROMAN Catholics. I am a Orthodox Catholic (Maronite) and the documents and pronouncements of Vatican II don't have much if any part of my faith.  We are in communion with the Pope, but have our own leadership, liturgy, and spirituality.

In other words, poo poo the documents and statements of Vatican II all you'd like -- but you still have to deal with folks like me. 

Peace in Christ,
S

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

6. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.


END END END

KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:

so the catholic church teaches that you can have salvation without knowing Christ.

Rev 1:5 and washed us from our SINS in HIS own BLOOD
1peter 1:18-19 we are redeemed with the BLOOD of CHRIST
Hebrews 13:12 sanctify the people with HIS own BLOOD
eph 1:7 we have redemption through HIS BLOOD
romans 3:25 god sent to be a propitiation through faith in HIS BLOOD
acts 20:28 HE has purchased with HIS own BLOOD

So we see only christ's BLOOD can save! And Moslems as well as ALL other religions DO NOT HAVE CHRIST BLOOD!  And have no salvation despite what the catholic church teaches!

Muslims deny Jesus is the Christ making them liars (1john2:22)
if they deny the SON (they do as Gods son) they have not the father (2:23)

so Muslims cannot have God since they do not have the son!!!!

1 John 4:15 no other pagan religions in the World confess that Jesus is the Son of God!
So God can't dwell in them!


So why does your church teach (per vatican.va) that all other religions can find salvation without Christ?

[Scott1]

So why does your church teach (per vatican.va) that all other religions can find salvation without Christ?

I am guessing you are either too busy with cut/paste or you really are not paying attention.

I am not a ROMAN Catholic.... the only Vatican II document that has anything to do with me is ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM, and that is about administration, not theology.

My Church does not teach that all other religions can find salvation without Christ.

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

1. The church CLAIMS it is the only way to salvation.
A. And how would people get this idea
B. Why would the church allow them to believe THAT which is a lie?
C. To say that they lose their salvation if they leave the church, shows they had no salvation in the first place!

2. You cannot compare leaving the church with someone denying Jesus!(as your reformed comment)
A. So you compared leaving the church with denying Christ.

3. I can only go by concrete evidence and not by if catholic have many different beliefs contrary to the vaticans site.


Also I did NOT take it out of context.... If the church CLAIMS salvation is only through their church...

Doesn't matter if you believe it or not. The church claims is enough!

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

So why does your church teach (per vatican.va) that all other religions can find salvation without Christ?

I am guessing you are either too busy with cut/paste or you really are not paying attention.

I am not a ROMAN Catholic.... the only Vatican II document that has anything to do with me is ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM, and that is about administration, not theology.

My Church does not teach that all other religions can find salvation without Christ.

I can't delve into each Catholics belief..... Is not the pope the head APPOINTED by God?  So when you ASK a catholic it ALL depends on what that person believes as to what answer you will get.
 

Almost like pick and choose.... So where would I find the correct teachings of the catholic church?
If the pope and church claim salvation through them alone (to those who believe) then since Salavtion (as you say) ISNT based on the church, how can you both be saved?

They believe they need the church and you don't - you both can't be right

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

My Church does not teach that all other religions can find salvation without Christ.

KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:

1. so then your church teaches salvation contray to the popes teaching?
2. And your church has let people know salvation is NOT dependent upon the pope or offical church teaching?

[Scott1]

My Church does not teach that all other religions can find salvation without Christ.

KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:

1. so then your church teaches salvation contray to the popes teaching?
2. And your church has let people know salvation is NOT dependent upon the pope or offical church teaching?

KB -- you said you can't "delve" into RC teaching -- and don't seem to know the basics about catholic theology -- someone I don't think you care too much about my faith or my salvation for that matter.  Just a guess on my part...

The Maronite Catholic Church has a different Patriarch ( while in communion with Rome), different liturgy and spirituality ... Vatican II was not a Ecumenical Council (some Latins dispute this) but a council for them alone.
I would be happy to explain what we believe, but like I said you don't seem like the type who cares much.

Peace be with you,
Scott

[Paulus]

Vatican II was not a Ecumenical Council (some Latins dispute this) but a council for them alone.

NO ! NO! NO!

The Second Vatican Council was the 21st Ecumenical Council .

[Scott1]

NO ! NO! NO!

The Second Vatican Council was the 21st Ecumenical Council .

To me, Ecumenical Councs are held with the entire Church... and without the Orthodox Patriarchs as part of the Council it seems to me it was a bit less than Ecumenical.

Just my opinion.  :-)

** EDIT **
One more take:
"The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest
level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of 'superdogma,' which takes away the importance of all the rest" (Cardinal Ratzinger 1988 Address to Chilean New bishops)...(emphasis mine)

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

My Church does not teach that all other religions can find salvation without Christ.

KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:

1. so then your church teaches salvation contray to the popes teaching?
2. And your church has let people know salvation is NOT dependent upon the pope or offical church teaching?

KB -- you said you can't "delve" into RC teaching -- and don't seem to know the basics about catholic theology -- someone I don't think you care too much about my faith or my salvation for that matter.  Just a guess on my part...

The Maronite Catholic Church has a different Patriarch ( while in communion with Rome), different liturgy and spirituality ... Vatican II was not a Ecumenical Council (some Latins dispute this) but a council for them alone.
I would be happy to explain what we believe, but like I said you don't seem like the type who cares much.

Peace be with you,
Scott

No go ahead and tell me, I have questions for you....Most times I like to go right to the site itself.

1. If you left the catholic church would you still have salvation?
2. Do you believe a priest can forgive sins?
3. Tradition and scripture equals? As per RCC
4. Christ dead on the cross crucifix?
5. The pope, infallible when it comes to word of god? (ex cathdra)

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

Scott.... So it is TRUE that the RCC teaches a lie about salvation?

The part were if people think they have to have the church and leave it they have no salvation?

Don't you think this is wrong to let people believe such things?

I noticed you didn't say anything other than your not RC..... And what about the vaticans teaching on all other faiths can have salvation but not the christian...

[Scott1]

1. If you left the catholic church would you still have salvation?

If I truly believed in my heart that it was necessary to leave I would certainly be conscience bound to do so---and would be just as saved then as now.

2. Do you believe a priest can forgive sins?

No

3. Tradition and scripture equals? As per RCC

Yes

4. Christ dead on the cross crucifix?

Not sure what you are asking... but yes, I believe:
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

5. The pope, infallible when it comes to word of god? (ex cathdra)

No

[Scott1]

Scott.... So it is TRUE that the RCC teaches a lie about salvation?

The part were if people think they have to have the church and leave it they have no salvation?

Not making much sense....

If you think you have to stay in the Church for salvation, and leave anyway, wouldn't that person be implicitly rejecting both their conscience and Christ?

Hardly ideal situation for one to be in, eh?

I noticed you didn't say anything other than your not RC..... And what about the vaticans teaching on all other faiths can have salvation but not the christian...

**sigh**

One last time hopefully:
Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

See there where my Latin friends even take some of the blame... (emphasis mine on all of these)

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

Can it get clearer? 

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

Hopefully that oughta do it for this topic.

[Paulus]

NO ! NO! NO!

The Second Vatican Council was the 21st Ecumenical Council .

To me, Ecumenical Councs are held with the entire Church... and without the Orthodox Patriarchs as part of the Council it seems to me it was a bit less than Ecumenical

I am unsure what you mean by "the Orthodox Patriarchs" . Are you referring to the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church or to the Patriarchs of Eastern Rite Catholics who are in communion with the Roman See , with the bishop of Rome ?

The Second Vatican Council , the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church , was the largest in number of Patriarchs and other bishops in attendance than any previous Ecumenical Council . It was also the most catholic ( with a small c ) in that the Council Fathers were from all four corners of the globe .

The Patriarchs of the Eastern Rite Catholics were present . They were most distinctive by their vestments which made many Catholics aware that there were other rites in the Church other than the Latin rite .

In the apostolic constitution "Humanae Salutis" of Dec 25th 1961 Blessed Pope John XXIII convoked the Second Vatican Council . He said : " Welcoming as from above the intimate voice of our spirit , we considered that the times were right to offer to the Catholic Church and to the world the gift of a new Ecumenical Council , as an addition to , and continuation of , the twenty great councils , which have been through the centuries a truly heavenly providence for the increase of grace and Christian progress.....It seems to us that the time has come to convoke the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council .....we convoke for the forthcoming year 1962 the Ecumenical and Universal Council .....We consequently wish and order that to this Ecumenical Council there should come all who have the right and duty to attend the Council . "

On Oct 11th 1962 Blessed Pope John XXIII opened the Council saying : " The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is being solemnly opened here besides St Peter's tomb ...." Ecumenical Council" , we uttered those words to the Sacred College of Cardinals in 1959 . It was completely unexpected , like a flash of heavenly light ....The Ecumenical Council commences .....The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this : that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously ....The Twenty-first Ecumenical Council wishes to transmit the doctrine , pure and integral ....The Catholic Church desires by this Ecumenical Council to show herself the loving mother of all . "

On Dec 8th 1965 Pope Paul VI declared the Council completed : " At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has been accomplished....Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor , Pope John XXIII ...."

Well that seems quite plain to me .

And no red herrings or blind alleys by using adjectives such as pastoral , dogmatic , spiritual , sacred , apostolic , or whatever other adjectives you may choose to use to try to make the 21st Ecumenical Council not be the Ecumenical Council only someone lacking the knowledge of clear , straightforward language could fail to see it was .

[Scott1]

Seem to be missing my point...

I don't find the Councils after the Schism to be truly "Ecumenical" in any sense of the word.

Please feel free to disagree, just please try to do it without the rude ("someone lacking the knowledge of clear , straightforward language could fail to see it was") comments.

Peace be with you,
Scott

[Paulus]

Seem to be missing my point...

Which point am I missing ?

If you are in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome , why do you not accept the words of the Popes ?

Were the Council Fathers of the Second Vatican Council deluded ?

You have not produced one quote to substantiate your strange interpretation of your theory .

For once do provide some official documentation in replying to my posts .

[Ladonia]

My Church does not teach that all other religions can find salvation without Christ.

KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:

1. so then your church teaches salvation contray to the popes teaching?
2. And your church has let people know salvation is NOT dependent upon the pope or offical church teaching?

KB -- you said you can't "delve" into RC teaching -- and don't seem to know the basics about catholic theology -- someone I don't think you care too much about my faith or my salvation for that matter.  Just a guess on my part...

The Maronite Catholic Church has a different Patriarch ( while in communion with Rome), different liturgy and spirituality ... Vatican II was not a Ecumenical Council (some Latins dispute this) but a council for them alone.
I would be happy to explain what we believe, but like I said you don't seem like the type who cares much.

Peace be with you,
Scott

For our other Christian bretheren who come here to the Catholic section is seems it is all about questioning this or that or tearing down the faith and believers every chance they get. It's not a sincere effort to learn what we believe and accept our way and then leave it at that. It's funny, we (Catholics) by and large do not go to their sections and attempt to stir the pot. But anyway, since you are in communtion with Rome, like it or not you are lumped in with the Latin Rite.

[Scott1]

Which point am I missing ?

The part where I state it is my opinion....

If you are in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome , why do you not accept the words of the Popes ?

While I don't offer these opinions in public and teach orthodoxy to my students, there are several issues that I am personally dealing with.

... and to be clear, I don't think the Church is in error --- I am trying to work out why I can't see the truth in their statements.

Were the Council Fathers of the Second Vatican Council deluded ?

Don't understand the question...

You have not produced one quote to substantiate your strange interpretation of your theory .

For once do provide some official documentation in replying to my posts .

I would first like to point out that you seem awfully angry... and I pray you can discuss topics with your fellow Christians without undue stress.

Again... these are my OPINIONS.... hard to give you "official documentation" to MY OPINIONS... get it now?

... not to mention, any additional quotes would be from Orthodox sources and you wouldn't find them convincing.  I hope you understand the difference between fact and opinion, as it will make further discussion much easier.

If you feel so strongly that I am in error, we could certainly start a thread or two about the issues I am struggling with the most (Papal Supremacy and Infallibility) provided you think you can help instead of getting upset.

Peace be with you,
Scott

For our other Christian bretheren who come here to the Catholic section is seems it is all about questioning this or that or tearing down the faith and believers every chance they get. It's not a sincere effort to learn what we believe and accept our way and then leave it at that. It's funny, we (Catholics) by and large do not go to their sections and attempt to stir the pot. But anyway, since you are in communtion with Rome, like it or not you are lumped in with the Latin Rite.

I understand that... and I appreciate you pointing it out.

It is my sincere desire not to cause scandal or confusion offering my opinions on things that I personally struggle with... but I hope I continue to be welcome here --- or maybe I should move all my comments to a different part of the forum.

Interested in you opinion, my friend...
S

[Paulus]

Which point am I missing ?

The part where I state it is my opinion....

If you are in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome , why do you not accept the words of the Popes ?

While I don't offer these opinions in public and teach orthodoxy to my students, there are several issues that I am personally dealing with.

... and to be clear, I don't think the Church is in error --- I am trying to work out why I can't see the truth in their statements.

Were the Council Fathers of the Second Vatican Council deluded ?

Don't understand the question...

You have not produced one quote to substantiate your strange interpretation of your theory .

For once do provide some official documentation in replying to my posts .

I would first like to point out that you seem awfully angry... and I pray you can discuss topics with your fellow Christians without undue stress.

Again... these are my OPINIONS.... hard to give you "official documentation" to MY OPINIONS... get it now?

... not to mention, any additional quotes would be from Orthodox sources and you wouldn't find them convincing.  I hope you understand the difference between fact and opinion, as it will make further discussion much easier.

If you feel so strongly that I am in error, we could certainly start a thread or two about the issues I am struggling with the most (Papal Supremacy and Infallibility) provided you think you can help instead of getting upset.

Peace be with you,
Scott

For our other Christian bretheren who come here to the Catholic section is seems it is all about questioning this or that or tearing down the faith and believers every chance they get. It's not a sincere effort to learn what we believe and accept our way and then leave it at that. It's funny, we (Catholics) by and large do not go to their sections and attempt to stir the pot. But anyway, since you are in communtion with Rome, like it or not you are lumped in with the Latin Rite.

I understand that... and I appreciate you pointing it out.

It is my sincere desire not to cause scandal or confusion offering my opinions on things that I personally struggle with... but I hope I continue to be welcome here --- or maybe I should move all my comments to a different part of the forum.

Interested in you opinion, my friend...
S

No , I am not angry .

I am confused by what you say .

On different threads I have posted quotes made by various Popes but you appear to ignore what they are saying .

None of my quotes have been taken out of context , and they are all in the public domain for anyone who wishes to seek verification .

This is a Catholic Forum , and no Catholic should be reluctant to state his/her opinions , but he/she must be prepared to have them challenged by other Catholics if they dispute them .

I am a Lancastrian from the north of England and we are noted for calling a spade a spade . We tend to be blunt , but do not take that personally.

I would love to hear of the areas where you are having difficulties . You may find that I share some of the same difficulties .

On many matters I am at variance with the Hierarchy , but as far as I am aware they are not matters that are part of the deposit of faith .

The Church is always in need of continual reform . ( Those are not my words , but the words of the Council Fathers at the Second Vatican Council ) . We should be adult enough in our faith to discuss issues where we differ , and not have the feeling that we are treading on eggshells all of the time .

We ought not to be afraid of voicing our concerns about Church affairs when we feel the need .

I must confess that on occasion I have drawn back from criticising a post just because the poster was a Catholic . Now that was wrong and probably hypocritical of me . Now I don't respond to posts made by non-RCs because I became weary of the tit-for-tat Catholic bashing followed by Protestant bashing and vice versa . However I do respond to posts made by Catholics where I believe there is need for clarification or correction , knowing hopefully that the Catholic posters will realise I am doing it out of concern that the truth be known and not for the sake of having a dig at the Catholic Church .

[Scott1]

On different threads I have posted quotes made by various Popes but you appear to ignore what they are saying .

Again, I am not sure why this is confusing for you.  I don't PERSONALLY find any of these (OR ANY) statements by a Pope to be anything other than their opinions -- certainly not an infallible one at that.

MY OPINION is that the Pope is the first among equals ... I listen to MY Patriarch and my Bishop.  MY OPINION is that the Pope is not the Supreme Leader of the Universal Church, and pray for the day when this addition to the church is corrected.   I pray for the church as it was for a thousand years before the Schism.

Now, I do believe in the Papacy -- or else I would become Orthodox -- just not in the present, non-historical state.

Hopefully that explains why I don't much care about the quotes you offered - I doubt you know the name of my Patriarch, let alone would feel bound to follow his instructions -- and I PERSONALLY feel the same way about the Patriarch of the Latin Rite.

I would love to hear of the areas where you are having difficulties . You may find that I share some of the same difficulties .

As you can see, my biggest objection is to the idea of Papal supremacy -- that is the root that leads to all other issues.

However I do respond to posts made by Catholics where I believe there is need for clarification or correction , knowing hopefully that the Catholic posters will realise I am doing it out of concern that the truth be known and not for the sake of having a dig at the Catholic Church .

Super ... that is why I am here.  I just ask that you are prepared to hear my side of things and don't just simply fall back on modern Papal quotes that I don't find compelling in any way.

[Paulus]

I doubt you know the name of my Patriarch,  I just ask that you are prepared to hear my side of things and don't just simply fall back on modern Papal quotes that I don't find compelling in any way.

Patriarch Bechara Boultros al-Rahi ?

I think we are going to have to agree to differ on the use of the terms "Roman Catholic Church" and "Ecumenical Council" .

I certainly try to hear your side of things , and will take into account your views of the Papacy .

Some of my thoughts , about which I would like to hear your response :-

" The body of the faithful as a whole , anointed as they are by the Holy One , cannot err in matters of belief . Thanks to a supernatural sense of the faith which characterises the People as a whole , it manifests this unerring quality when , from the bishops down to the last member of the laity , it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals . " ( from Lumen Gentium ) .

That for me is a good starting point . The idea that "the sense of the faithful" , imprinted on their hearts by the Holy Spirit , cannot err , was a favourite theme of my fellow countryman , the Blessed John Henry Newman .

" The bishops can proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly ....This authority is more clearly verified when , gathered together in an ecumenical council , they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church . Their definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith . " ( from Lumen Gentium ) .

The above quote I have used is not to go on about ecumenical councils , but to bring out the point of the infallibility of the College of Bishops ..

So far we can see infallibility within the People of God as a whole , and then within the College of Bishops .

Now we come to Papal infallibility . If I had been living at the time of Blessed John Henry Newman , I would have shared his view that the doctine of Papal infalliblity should not have been defined as a dogma .

Some hold the opinion that the charism of Papal infallibility has been used only twice , to proclaim the dogmas of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception . There was no great controversy at the time about these two doctrines , and I fail to see why they were declared dogma .

I believe that the definition of papal infallibility has been detrimental to the Church . It focuses attention on one man and takes our attention off the rest of the bishops .
It also leads to an unhealthy centralisation , and the Curia in Rome ends up as a bureaucracy interfering in every nook and cranny of the Church .

The Roman See obviously has its place within the Church , but its intervention should be left for matters of grave concern .

Just a few thoughts which I hope will enable you to see where I am coming from . There is much that I have omitted , but the above words are offered as just a taster .