Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[Giuliano]

It doesn't matter if TEN bishops suggest this. They don't make up the Magesterium and they certainly aren't infallible.

It must not matter. That's why I find it so shocking.

What seminary did that bishop attend? What does he believe? How was he ordained a priest and then made am archbishop? I find it loathsome for someone who says he believes the wine of Eucharist is the Real Blood of Christ to suggest including the blood of animals.

 

[Giuliano]

I am not familiar with the situation yoy described.
Did anyone bring a charge of heresy against him to a competant eccliastical court?

So far as I know, nobody's said a word, so what good does a latae sententiae excommunication do? If we say these people are truly excommunicated while retaining their offices, the next conclave would include such people. That doesn't make conclaves look good if you ask me. If someone didn't like who was elected Pope, he could claim the conclave was invalid and create a schism.

It's obviously not my decision to make; but I think the Church would be safer from internal squabbles if the situation was clearer so people can't argue over whether someone is excommunicated.

 

[Giuliano]

And I already addressed all of this back in post #1189.
However - in your infinite dishonesty - you ignored it.

Here it is again for your edification . . .

Constantine didn't run the Church - and all of that stuff is based largely on legend.
BUT - let's allow it for the sake of argument. Even IF Constantine suggested these traditions (small "t") - these can HARDLY conflated with "changing" the Church.

I see. So introducing pagan customs didn't change the Church. Okay, if you say so.

Did the Church hijack some pagan practices and "Christianize" them? History seems to support this. HOWEVER - the reasons were twofold:
a) To usurp their original meanings and intent
b) to converting pagans.

Were people truly converted then? Or were they doing the same things under a different name?

When was the last time you heard of ANYBODY crediting a particular pagan god with wedding rings??
Or the Kyrie Elaison?
Or a candle??
Or Holy Water??

Get my drift?

I get it. Now let's claim again nothing has ever changed, that everything is following the Tradition established by Jesus and the Apostles.

 

[Giuliano]

We must admit, however, that it was the early church that kept the doctrines in tact and preserved the teachings of Christ...little by little burdens were added, as you stated.
But I believe that at the beginning, prior to the councils,, the early theologians, or fathers, were more concerned with explaining Christianity and creating some doctrine that one could actually hold on to, instead of creating new burdens, as you put it.
And, indeed, they were burdens.

I'm not convinced they did keep the doctrines intact.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm not convinced they did keep the doctrines intact.

Who else could have?
There was no one else around....

 

[BreadOfLife]

It must not matter. That's why I find it so shocking.

What seminary did that bishop attend? What does he believe? How was he ordained a priest and then made am archbishop? I find it loathsome for someone who says he believes the wine of Eucharist is the Real Blood of Christ to suggest including the blood of animals.

It is just as loathsome and puzzling to find out that a bishop or minister molested small children.
Doesn't matter which seminary they went to . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I'm not convinced they did keep the doctrines intact.

Then YOU believe that Christ is a liar.

Matt. 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

According to YOU - it's very possible that the gates of Hell DID prevail against 1500 years of Christians who went straight to Hell for practicing perverted doctrines . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I see. So introducing pagan customs didn't change the Church. Okay, if you say so.
Were people truly converted then? Or were they doing the same things under a different name?
I get it. Now let's claim again nothing has ever changed, that everything is following the Tradition established by Jesus and the Apostles.

So, you honestly believe that lighting a candle in prayer to God for a sick person is the same thing as offering a candle to a pagan deity??
You honestly believe that when you place a ring on your wife's hand - that you are worshiping a pagan god??

Your dishonesty knows NO bounds . . .

As for Traditions - there is "Tradition" - and "tradition".
"Tradition" is sacred or Apostolic.
"tradition" can be anything from a story of a saint's life to a local cultural custom.

 

[epostle]

How does that work? It looks to me as if it probably doesn't. The Orthodox Church doesn't have this sort of thing, so I'm assuming it was a Catholic idea. People can be told their actions are excommunicating them; but do they care? Do they really? It seems not, not if they can do these things and nothing else happens to them. They can keep their jobs as bishops, even get promoted to be Cardinals maybe -- all while being excommunicated in theory?

What about the Cardinals leaking details of the conclave to the press? In theory, that was also would have incurred latae sententiae excommunication; but nothing happened. The rules say a Pope can permit them to divulge details; but if Pope Francis okayed it, why didn't he say so so people wouldn't think Cardinals were excommunicated?

This rule creates unnecessary skepticism about the validity of priests, bishops and even Cardinals. It also puts the Pope in a very awkward position. Does he know someone was under latae sententiae excommunication when he promotes someone; or was he ill informed? I don't like the rule.

Is is one thing to indulge in gay sex because you can do penance for that and not be excommunicated -- but worse to advocate making gay relationships valid in the eyes of the Church? That would be strange if that's the case.

This is not the first time something like this happened. What should we make of Pope Francis celebrating Mass with a gay activist priest back in 2014?

Pope kisses the hand of, concelebrates mass with pro-homosexual activist priest

Pope Francis raised eyebrows earlier this month by concelebrating Mass with and kissing the hand of a leading homosexual activist priest campaigning for changes in the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. On May 6, Francis received the 93 year-old priest who has cofounded the homosexualist activist organization, Agedo Foggia, that is opposed to Catholic Church teaching.

Fr. (Don) Michele de Paolis concelebrated Mass with Pope Francis at the Domus Santa Martha and then presented the pontiff with gifts of a wooden chalice and paten and a copy of his most recent book, “Dear Don Michele - questions to an inconvenient priest”.

In a previous book, Don Michele wrote, “homosexual love is a gift from (God) no less than heterosexual.” He also disparaged the idea of homosexual couples not having sex.

Francis closed the meeting by kissing the priest’s hand, a gesture that the far-left newspaper L'immediato called one “revealing the humility of a great man to another of the same stature.” De Paolis described the unusual papal gesture himself in a post to his Facebook page, saying that he asked Francis for an audience with the priest’s other organization, the Community of Emmaus: “Is that possible?”
He said that the pope replied, “Anything is possible. Talk to Cardinal Maradiaga and he shall prepare everything.”

“And then (unbelievably) he kissed my hand! I hugged him and wept,” de Paolis concluded.

Should we believe Francis knew nothing? What about the priest's bishop? He also knew nothing? Then the strange case of Bishop Gaillot who was in favor of both gay marriage and euthansia.

Jacques Gaillot - Wikipedia

Gantin summoned Gaillot to a meeting at the Vatican on 13 January 1995 and offered the choice of resigning his see and becoming bishop emeritus of Évreux or being removed from his office. Gaillot returned to France and issued a statement that said: "I was asked to hand in my resignation, which I thought I had good reasons to refuse." As all bishops need to be assigned to a see (diocese), whether one that they administer or one to which they have only the relationship established by their title to it–a titular see–he was assigned the titular see of Parthenia, in accordance with standard practice for a bishop without real administrative responsibilities, used routinely for auxiliary bishops, officials of the Roman Curia, and senior diplomats of the Holy See.

He wasn't treated as if excommunicated. Most people, including the French clergy supported him. Skip forward now:

In 2000, Louis-Marie Billé, Archbishop of Lyon and president of the French Bishops Conference, invited Gaillot to attend a national ecumenical service in Lyon on 14 May alongside other senior members of the French hierarchy. Billé said the invitation came from the bishops as a group: "It is important that Catholics, and public opinion in general, are aware that the communion that links us as brothers is real, even when it is lived out in a special fashion. What happened five years ago remains a wound even for those who don't necessarily share Mgr Gaillot's opinions." There was no indication that the Pope or anyone in the Roman Curia was involved. Gaillot accepted, writing that he was "happy to demonstrate my communion with the Church".

On 1 September 2015, shortly before his 80th birthday, Gaillot, accompanied by Daniel Duigou, a priest and former journalist, met privately with Pope Francis in his Vatican City residence for 45 minutes. Gaillot said the pontiff encouraged him to continue his activism on behalf of migrants and refugees. After the meeting, Gaillot said he was “in love” with Francis.

Is there something I'm not understanding?

Yes. Psuedo-schismatics are still in the Church.
"They are going through a rough time. We have to lead them gently."
Pope Francis post #2202

There are liberal factions in lifesitenews bent on discrediting the Pope, even though it publishes a lot of good stuff.

 

[epostle]

You're more generous than I. I think the early Church began falling into spiritual darkness almost at once.

It looks like a dogmatic statement to me. The first 40 Popes were martyred, along with many Early Church Fathers. You spit on their blood.

 

[epostle]

There’s the ideology of the primacy of a sterile morality regarding the morality of the people of God. The pastors must lead their flock between grace and sin because this is evangelical morality. Instead, a morality based on such a pelagian ideology leads you to rigidity, and today we have many schools of rigidity within the Church, which are not schisms, but pseudo-schismatic Christian developments that will end badly.

When you see rigid Christians, bishops, priests, there are problems behind that, not Gospel holiness. So, we need to be gentle with those who are tempted by these attacks, they are going through a tough time, we must accompany them gently.”

Pope Responds to Questions About 'Schism' and Criticism in US Church & Beyond, Returning from 4th Apostolic Visit to Africa - ZENIT - English

 

[Philip James]

if the situation was clearer so people can't argue over whether someone is excommunicated

The teaching of the Church on homosexuality is clear.

Peace!

 

[epostle]

As to the synod, I'm not really sure I understand it....
The regular synods that are called to clarify spiritual matters of faith, morals, doctrine, etc. are called by and guided by the Holy Spirit. What the pope wants to do is being called a "human" or man-made synod. IOW, it's HIM that wants this...it's not really necessary since the normal synods are avx for important matters.

The Pope wants to take Dignitatus Humanae off the paper, and put it into action.

I also don't follow all the news that comes out of the Vatican....I could spend all day just on that and I really don't care that much, but I do know what's going on by those who know...No mystery involved--just persons that speak to me that know more than I do and that would know.
Conservatives are very much against what he's trying to do...
liberalize the church.

Catholics are not divided between "liberal" and "conservative". Friction exists between pseudo-schismatics (who are still in the Church) and those loyal to the Magisterium. This is nothing new.

Of course the pope knows this new synod will not be welcomed except for his friends who will be composing this man-made and permanent synod.

Pope Francis hopes “all” young people will participate in the preparation of the October 2018 Synod, inviting the world’s young people to contribute online via social media.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE in #SYNOD2018:

World’s Young People Can Participate in Pre-Synodal Meeting in Rome Next Month: World's Young People Can Participate in Pre-Synodal Meeting in Rome Next Month - ZENIT - English

For young people, a Facebook page has been created: Log in or sign up to view

The Synod’s official site published, in English, with useful instruments for the pre-synodal meeting:

Pre-Synodal Meeting

But does he care?
NO.
This pope has already caused a schism in the CC.
This happened back in 2016 when he wrote Amores Laetitea, and in particular chapter 8's footnote.

There are too many footnotes to paste. What page is it on?
http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/fr...sortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

The church has always stated that remarrieds cannot receive communion.

Only if the first "marriage" was not yet proven invalid.

Now, I'd say that not being able to receive communion is ex-communication...think of it.

That is your opinion. The Church has never taught that. The Church doesn't excommunicate anyone in these circumstances, people excommunicate themselves.

If you can't receive communion it means you're in mortal sin and headed to hell. So what's the use of allowing one to go to Mass (which was NOT allowed before 1917 BTW) BUT NOT RECEIVING COMMUNION? The Mass IS COMMUNION!

The Mass is a public event. Anyone can attend, but not everyone can receive.
Exodus 12:43-45; Ezek. 44:9 – no one outside the “family of God” shall eat the lamb. Non-Catholics should not partake of the Eucharist until they are in full communion with the Church.

Catholics in a state of mortal sin won't get any benefit from It. The remarried, who do not want to be separated from God and/or scandalize the community, are entitled to mercy, not rules. For some, this poses a scandal in the community, especially the pseudo-schismatics.

This pope has changed doctrine and is allowing remarried couples to receive communion.

The rules for what defines "remarried" is not doctrinal, for the 10th time, and it does not apply to all situations.

Remembering that there is no such thing as divorce in the CC (except for some very few reasons, which I do know but won't get into) so if a person gets remarried at city hall, they are living in mortal sin and cannot receive communion.

So the Church should deny them the right to sacramentalize the marriage?

This is a huge change and caused much upheavel a few years ago.

That's true, the pseudo-schismatics went nuts. For those loyal to the Magisterium, Laetitia Amoris was a relief for those who found themselves in a complex situation. There are no easy recipes.

The main concern is for the children. How is a parent supposed to be the primary educator by setting the example of not receiving? There are numerous paragraphs concerning the spiritual being of children. Not once have you referenced any of that. It's easier to beak off rather than take the time to understand it.

 

[epostle]

Oh, I agree with you.
Gnosticism entered into the church even before the Apostles had passed away.
John was writing about THEM when he said that they left because they were not OF US...he was not speaking about unbelievers, but those who believed wrongly.

We must admit, however, that it was the early church that kept the doctrines in tact and preserved the teachings of Christ...little by little burdens were added, as you stated.
But I believe that at the beginning, prior to the councils,, the early theologians, or fathers, were more concerned with explaining Christianity and creating some doctrine that one could actually hold on to, instead of creating new burdens, as you put it.
And, indeed, they were burdens.

Doctrines flow directly, or indirectly, from what has been divinely revealed, through the Written or Spoken Word. The are not created.
Why don't you name the first "little burden" (or the second, or the third...) instead of generalizations and false histories? (which is extremely annoying) It surprises me coming from you.

Christ made everything simple...
man made everything complicated.

No, heretics make everything complicated. Christ gave sinful human beings the authority to teach, and correct the scandal of division, which the Apostles and their successors did emphatically.

 

[Giuliano]

It looks like a dogmatic statement to me. The first 40 Popes were martyred, along with many Early Church Fathers. You spit on their blood.


View attachment 7174

I fear I am tempting you to sin. You make this statement without even knowing what I meant? Consider this conversation at an end.

 

[Giuliano]

The teaching of the Church on homosexuality is clear.

Peace!

That does not solve the automatic excommunication problem, does it?

 

[Giuliano]

Then YOU believe that Christ is a liar.

Matt. 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

According to YOU - it's very possible that the gates of Hell DID prevail against 1500 years of Christians who went straight to Hell for practicing perverted doctrines . . .

I am through with you too.

 

[Philip James]

That does not solve the automatic excommunication problem, does it?

Whats the problem?

 

[Giuliano]

As to the synod, I'm not really sure I understand it....
The regular synods that are called to clarify spiritual matters of faith, morals, doctrine, etc. are called by and guided by the Holy Spirit. What the pope wants to do is being called a "human" or man-made synod. IOW, it's HIM that wants this...it's not really necessary since the normal synods are avx for important matters.

I also don't follow all the news that comes out of the Vatican....I could spend all day just on that and I really don't care that much, but I do know what's going on by those who know...No mystery involved--just persons that speak to me that know more than I do and that would know.

Conservatives are very much against what he's trying to do...
liberalize the church.



Of course the pope knows this new synod will not be welcomed except for his friends who will be composing this man-made and permanent synod.

But does he care?
NO.
This pope has already caused a schism in the CC.
This happened back in 2016 when he wrote Amores Laetitea, and in particular chapter 8's footnote.

The church has always stated that remarrieds cannot receive communion. Now, I'd say that not being able to receive communion is ex-communication...think of it. If you can't receive communion it means you're in mortal sin and headed to hell. So what's the use of allowing one to go to Mass (which was NOT allowed before 1917 BTW) BUT NOT RECEIVING COMMUNION? The Mass IS COMMUNION!

This pope has changed doctrine and is allowing remarried couples to receive communion.
Remembering that there is no such thing as divorce in the CC (except for some very few reasons, which I do know but won't get into) so if a person gets remarried at city hall, they are living in mortal sin and cannot receive communion.

This is a huge change and caused much upheavel a few years ago.


They're putting out rules!
It's just kept quiet...priests know what's going on.

My head's spinning. Meanwhile I ran across another bit of interesting news about a proposed German synod.

Vatican: German Synod Plans ‘Not Ecclesiologically Valid’

The assessment, signed by the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, says that the German bishops’ plans violate canonical norms and do, in fact, set out to alter universal norms and doctrines of the Church.

In his legal review of the draft statutes, Archbishop Filippo Iannone, head of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, noted that the Germans propose to treat four key themes: “authority, participation and separation of powers,” “sexual morality,” “the form of priestly life” and “women in Church ministries and offices.”

“It is easy to see that these themes do not only affect the Church in Germany but the universal Church and — with few exceptions — cannot be the object of the deliberations or decisions of a particular Church without contravening what is expressed by the Holy Father in his letter,” Archbishop Iannone wrote.

In his letter to the Church in Germany issued in June, Pope Francis warned the German bishops to respect the universal communion of the Church.

“Every time the ecclesial community has tried to resolve its problems alone, trusting and focusing exclusively on its forces or its methods, its intelligence, its will or prestige, it ended up increasing and perpetuating the evils it tried to solve,” Francis wrote.

The Vatican’s legal assessment raised a series of concerns about the proposed structure and the participants in the German “synodal path.” It concluded that the German bishops are not planning a national synod, but instead a particular Church council — something they cannot conduct without explicit Roman approval.

“It is clear from the articles of the draft of the statutes that the [German] Episcopal Conference has in mind to make a particular council pursuant to Canons 439-446 but without using this term,” the letter said, emphasizing the need for Vatican permission for such a gathering.

“If the German Episcopal Conference has arrived at the conviction that a particular council is necessary, they should follow the procedures provided by the Code [of Canon Law] in order to arrive at a binding deliberation.”

A council, unlike a synod, is a meeting of bishops given the authority to make laws for the Church in a particular country or region, but only under the direct authority of Rome, which defines the scope of its authority. A synod, which the German bishops have called their planned gathering, is instead supposed to be a pastoral and consultative group, without the authority to set policy. Holding a council at the national level is far less common than is holding a synod and requires that the Apostolic See approve its agenda, scope of action and its final resolutions.

The German bishops’ plan for the synod confers to the synod’s membership the ability to make new policies for the Church in Germany. This, the Vatican letter said, is not acceptable.

The Vatican letter also said that the proposed makeup of the Synodal Assembly is “not ecclesiologically valid.” It cited the bishops’ proposed partnership with the Central Committee of German Catholics, a lay group that has taken public stances against a range of Church teachings, including on women’s ordination and sexual morality.

The Vatican assessment noted with concern that the Central Committee of German Catholics only agreed to be involved in the process if the synod assembly could make binding policies for the German Church.

“How can a particular Church deliberate in a binding way if the topics dealt with affect the whole Church?” Archbishop Iannone asked.

“The episcopal conference cannot give legal effect to resolutions [on these matters]; this is beyond its competence,” his letter said.

“Synodality in the Church, to which Pope Francis refers often, is not synonymous with democracy or majority decisions,” Archbishop Iannone wrote, noting that even when a synod of bishops meets in Rome “it is up to the pontiff to present the results.”

It looks like a potential revolt to me.

As to Salvini....He either made a huge tactical error and I think he's too smart for that...
OR, as I THINK I said, the EU pushed him out to make room for the govt of the left of Conte and DiMaio, working in cahoots with each other. And the president of Italy, Mattarella, is in on it too. What a bunch.

I wonder how you know so much about everything!

It could be worse. You could have someone like Boris Johnson running things.

I hear the news on the BBC almost every morning; and if something rouses my interest, I may look into it more later.

Some places in Italy seem to be falling apart. Has Rome fixed their problem with trash yet? I heard that when Putin came to visit the Pope, the trash got picked up. Thanks, Putin!

The Italian national debt seems to be a major problem. I'm not sure who's on which side though.

 

[Giuliano]

Whats the problem?

Never mind.