To SPL_CADET or other Catholics

[Bill the Cat]

Could one of you explain this decree?


"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)


and this one:


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.)

[Jacob]

Today @ 05:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115085#post115085)
Bill the Cat:

Could one of you explain this decree?


"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)


and this one:


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.)


As a former Catholic who fiercly resisted leaving Catholicism, partly because of these teachings..... I can tell you that this means what it says. It has not been changed by any decree.

Catholicism teaches that Salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church. The Church is the mother of the Bible & the only true channel for sacramental grace. Faith in Christ, apart from the Catholic church, cannot save... so says the RCC.

This has been tempered by the Vatican II position, which says that people can be included in the realm of the church even if they don't believe themselves to be Catholic. This "anonymous Catholicism" teaches that each is to respond to God according to the revelation given to them. If they respond faithfully, then they may be considered to be members of the Catholic Church, and therefore saved.

As a former Catholic, who was confirmed, I am one of the few who cannot be saved without explicitly returning to the Catholic church for my salvation. So the Bhuddist who hold to Bhuddism because he/she really believes that it is correct is connected anonymously to the Catholic Church & can be saved, but I cannot.


Jacob

[spl_cadet]

First off, you need to understand the historical context. You had Catholics, non-Christians, and first generation heretics who had been Catholic but left the Church (there was also the Orthodox, but they pretty much fell into the Catholic category). So the heretics had all rejected the Church and so were rather lost. The problem arose with the Protestant Schism and when you started getting people born and raised as heretics. This helped contribute to the development of this doctrine, as the Church more fully realized this stuff.
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."


As a former Catholic, who was confirmed, I am one of the few who cannot be saved without explicitly returning to the Catholic church for my salvation.

First off, being confirmed means diddly squat for being a true Catholic. There are athiests who are confirmed because their parents want them to. Second, it's not quite that cut and dried. It's if you have left knowing that the Church was required for salvation (and being Christian at the time).
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.


So the Bhuddist who hold to Bhuddism because he/she really believes that it is correct is connected anonymously to the Catholic Church & can be saved, but I cannot.

Not quite. The Church doesn't quite know what happens with someone who has never heard the Gospel. I personally follow the same theory as Holding.

[brianberean]

First off, you need to understand the historical context. You had Catholics, non-Christians, and first generation heretics who had been Catholic but left the Church (there was also the Orthodox, but they pretty much fell into the Catholic category).

Not so fast. The Orthodox were considered schismatics were they not? To say that these severe condemnations were not meant for the Orthodox is anachronistic and dead wrong.

Unam Sanctum even singles out the Greeks (Orthodox):

So, when the Greeks and others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ’s sheep, even as the Lord says in John, ‘There is one fold and one shepherd’... Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff,—this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation (From the Bull Unam Sanctam. Found in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910), Volume VI, pp. 25-27).[/quote]

Has the RCC changed (contradicted) it's teaching concerning the Eastern Orthodox?

Brian

[spl_cadet]

My bad.
As for the Orthodox, I'd give you a link about it but EWTN appears to be down at the moment.
This may or may not be the right link, so don't so me if it isn't:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/MEMBCHR.TXT

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 11:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115313#post115313)
spl_cadet:
First off, being confirmed means diddly squat for being a true Catholic. There are athiests who are confirmed because their parents want them to. Second, it's not quite that cut and dried. It's if you have left knowing that the Church was required for salvation (and being Christian at the time).
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.


I was confirmed. Through study I came to know that the Catholic church taught that salvation is only through the Catholic church. I came to disagree with this teaching (and other Catholic distinctives) and then I left the RCC. I reject the Catholic church's authority and her teaching.

My dad blames it on poor teaching in the Catholic schools following Vatican II.




Not quite. The Church doesn't quite know what happens with someone who has never heard the Gospel. I personally follow the same theory as Holding.

The Catholic Church doesn't quite know what happens with someone who has heard the Gospel & chosen to follow it. The Bhuddist might be saved, the Evangelical might be saved, the Catholic might be saved ... ...


Jacob

[spl_cadet]

Through study I came to know that the Catholic church taught that salvation is only through the Catholic church.

Which is logical and true. Christ set up the Church, thus salvation would come through it.


My dad blames it on poor teaching in the Catholic schools following Vatican II.


He's probably right. Teaching has gone down the drain.


The Catholic Church doesn't quite know what happens with someone who has heard the Gospel & chosen to follow it. The Bhuddist might be saved, the Evangelical might be saved, the Catholic might be saved ... ...

Nope. The Buddhist who heard it goes to Hell, and the Evangelical and Catholic will be saved as long as they stay in a state of grace.

[Jacob]

I wasn't very careful in how I worded things....

Today @ 02:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115986#post115986)
spl_cadet:

Which is logical and true. Christ set up the Church, thus salvation would come through it.


I agree, but only if you think of the church as all believers (in truly catholic proportions). It is through believers preaching the gospel that salavation is made available. But I'll leave this point alone, since I don't desire to duplicate the reformation.:teeth:



Nope. The Buddhist who heard it goes to Hell, and the Evangelical and Catholic will be saved as long as they stay in a state of grace.

This is where I miscommunicated. I was not referring to the Buddhist who heard the gospel. I was referring to the Buddhist who has not heard the Gospel (or has not heard it clearly) but is a faithful Buddhist.

Just who is in this "state of grace"? Can you know, with confidence, when you're in or out of this state of grace? The Catholic Church teaches that you cannot know until you die.


Jacob

[Ryokan]

As a Jesuit trained student, I was given the Jesuit interpretation, that if one acted in a way consistent with the teachings of Jesus, you were part of the Church whether you knew it or not, whether or not you had heard the word, because you had heard the word in your heart. Very works based salvation.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 07:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116030#post116030)
Ryokan:

As a Jesuit trained student, I was given the Jesuit interpretation, that if one acted in a way consistent with the teachings of Jesus, you were part of the Church whether you knew it or not, whether or not you had heard the word, because you had heard the word in your heart. Very works based salvation.

Only have time for this at the moment...
It actually isn't work based salvation. That idea is very much similar to JP Holding's theory. You also have to consider what it means to act in a way consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

[Jin-Roh]

According to what I read in a fairly recent Church History book, the "catholics only" (i.e. Not protestants) salvation was changed at Vatican II if I remember correctly.

Despite that, I still think that that some of the stuff in the CCC needs explaining; paragraph 841 for instance.

Of course being an ex-catholic myself, I could probably agree with SPL that teaching has gone down the drain (that's not just in catholism I might add), becuase I've probably learned more about Catholism since I've left the Mother Church than while I was getting ready to be confirmed.

[Dr T]

There is an assumption that the Roman Catholic Church is the original Church that everyone else has broken away from.

This is not the case. originally there were five equal positions.
Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexadria and Rome.
Rome only became important oover a long period of time.
This was due to a number of reasons, but until 800 it was at best first amongst a number, and for most of time just one of a number. And even these didn't represent all the Christians. Christanity flourished outside the Roman empire for a long time.

I think part of the reason of Romes eventual primacy was things like the Muslim conquest which removed the power (but not the position) of three of the other contenders. Until 800 the Roman patriarch was answerable to the emperor in Constantinople.

There are (or were) numerous Churchs that were either outside the Roman Empire altogether or fell under Muslim control fairly early on that have existed at least as long as the Roman Church.

You also need to be careful of early quotes, References to the catholic Church has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church.
Catholic means universal, in one universal Church, and has nothing to do with what happened in Rome. The Roman Church picking the word Catholic as it made it's claim to be the one true Church.

The Ortodox Church probably has better claims to be the original Church from which the Roman Church split. A couple of times in history the Orthodox Church has been forced to admit Roman primacy, but these were all as a result of politics.

[Solly]

06-02-2003 @ 11:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115313#post115313)
spl_cadet:
First off, being confirmed means diddly squat for being a true Catholic.

:eek: Can that be said of all the means of grace sacraments of the Holy Church, continuance in said sacraments that are essential to salvation? Have you been reading Hans Küng?

I would rather the RCC kept to the old views; at least it promoted the idea that being in the church, being with christians, being part of worship and liturgy and ordinances really meant something. Instead, this new inclusivist view hands it all to the outsider while placing aburden on the sheep.

[Belteshazzar]

Dr T:

Until 800 the Roman patriarch was answerable to the emperor in Constantinople.

You statement is so grossly erroneous, on so many different levels, that its difficult to pick a starting point. But if this is your view of history, then I can understand why you have some misgivings about the Church.

Jerry

[Bill the Cat]

Hey, Beltesh...Belsheesszz... Hey Daniel, can you tell me what you think of these proclamations?? Is Spl_Cadet correct that this is not the view of the RCC any more??


** I LOVE your screen name**

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 01:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150819#post150819)
Solly:



:eek: Can that be said of all the means of grace sacraments of the Holy Church, continuance in said sacraments that are essential to salvation? Have you been reading Hans Küng?

My statement simply meant that whether you were confirmed or not did not mean you were really Catholic.

[Dr T]

Yesterday @ 03:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150956#post150956)
Belteshazzar:



You statement is so grossly erroneous, on so many different levels, that its difficult to pick a starting point. But if this is your view of history, then I can understand why you have some misgivings about the Church.

Jerry

If you check your history books you will find that a number of popes were taken to Constantinople to be put on trail. In AD 800, the ruler in Constantinople was the emperess Irene. She had come to power by blinding her own son (a fairly typical way of removing some one from being emperor as the emperor had to have no physical defects, her son died from the results). The Pope at the time had been accused of various wrong doings, and was in danger of being dragged away for trail. Given that in the west people didn't really recognise a woman as ruler, the Pope annouced that there was no emperor in place. Probably becasue he didn't wish to come before Irene (who as you can see from above was not a nice person, despite her title of "Equal of the Apostles"). As a result the Pope in question crowned Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor thus breaking the link between the Pope and Constaninople once and for all.

A good book on this subject is the "The history of Byzantium" by John Julius Norwich. You can get this in either a three volume edition or a 1 volume concised version. Don't know if there are any online links.

As well as detailing the times when the various Popes were taken over for trail in Constantinople it also gives the background to the above events, including the corruption charges the Pope in question faced.

[Belteshazzar]

Bill the Cat:

Is Spl_Cadet correct that this is not the view of the RCC any more??

Thanks for the screen name comment! :smile: Yes, spl_cadet nailed it, as usual, when he quoted Vatican II, which develops the Church's view on salvation. :smile: I don't really worry about all the proclamations made before Vatican II, its easier to just check the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out the present statement of doctrine.

Jerry

[JasonTE]

spl_cadet said:


First off, you need to understand the historical context. You had Catholics, non-Christians, and first generation heretics who had been Catholic but left the Church (there was also the Orthodox, but they pretty much fell into the Catholic category). So the heretics had all rejected the Church and so were rather lost. The problem arose with the Protestant Schism and when you started getting people born and raised as heretics. This helped contribute to the development of this doctrine, as the Church more fully realized this stuff.

You're mistaken. There were many groups outside of the RCC, long before the Reformation, that would be considered Christian by the standards of the Second Vatican Council: Waldensians, Lollards, Hussites, etc. Even during the first millennium, we find men such as John Chrysostom commenting:

"What is one to say to the disorders in the other Churches? For the evil did not stop even here [Constantinople], but made its way to the east. For as when some evil humor is discharged from the head, all the other parts are corrupted, so now also these evils, having originated in this great city as from a fountain, confusion has spread in every direction, and clergy have everywhere made insurrection against bishops, there has been schism between bishop and bishop, people and people, and will be yet more; every place is suffering from the throes of calamity, and the subversion of the whole civilized world." (Correspondence of St. Chrysostom with the Bishop of Rome, Letter 1:4)

"Thus a thousand similar errors are daily introduced into the Church, and we are become a laughing-stock to Jews and Greeks, seeing that the Church is divided into a thousand parties." (Commentary on Galatians, 1:7)

As early as the second century, we find Celsus, a ciritic of Christianity, commenting:

"Christians at first were few in number, and held the same opinions; but when they grew to be a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each wishing to have his own individual party: for this was their object from the beginning....being thus separated through their numbers, they confute one another, still having, so to speak, one name in common, if indeed they still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are determined in different ways by the various sects." (cited in Origen's Against Celsus, 3:10, 3:12)

This disunity included multiple churches disfellowshipping from the Roman church and its bishop for long periods of time. For example, as a result of the Three Chapters dispute at the Second Council of Constantinople in the sixth century, multiple churches in the West broke fellowship with the Roman church. In Aquileia, the broken fellowship lasted for more than a century.

The fact is, there was a lot of disunity long before the Reformation. The idea that only a small number of people were outside of the Pope's authority is false. The concept of the papacy didn't exist during the earliest generations of church history, and it was widely rejected after it first arose in Rome. So, when Pope Boniface VIII and the Council of Florence claim that submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation, they are contradicting the Second Vatican Council.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[PhilVaz]

JasonTE << You're mistaken. There were many groups outside of the RCC, long before the Reformation, that would be considered Christian by the standards of the Second Vatican Council: Waldensians, Lollards, Hussites, etc. >>

I was invited here from TheologyWeb admin I assume. Not sure if I like the format....don't want to spend a lot of time.

What is your source for the above statement? What did the Waldenses (other spelling is the way you have it), Lollards, and Hussites really believe? Look it up. During our debate last year (yes, I was late, and went over a few times, and its unfinished, got other things to do), I went to Univ South Florida library and took out some books on John Huss to get an idea what he believed. He was quite Catholic (read Roman Catholic) in his beliefs. If I can find what I photocopied, I'll type some of that in. You are talking about one heretic in the history of the Catholic Church, so this is not a sizeable "group" of people that disagreed with Roman Catholicism before the 16th century. If one reads what Huss actually believed, from his own writings, you will find he was quite Catholic (read Roman Catholic). So you can throw him out.

On the Waldenses: Have you read Baptism Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History by Baptist historian James Edward McGoldrick. Check it out. I discovered this book myself in 1995 at the library (the old fashioned way to research, before the Internet). McGoldrick's summary:

"Neither Waldo nor his early disciples could have subscribed to any historic Baptist confession of faith, and those doctrines that are peculiarly baptistic would have been unacceptable to Waldenses in any period of their history. Although successionists have hailed them as Baptists, medieval Waldenses were quite similar to the Catholic Franciscans, those of the Reformation were akin to Presbyterians, and those of today have become Methodists."

In other words, they didn't become explicitly Protestant until they joined the Reformation. Before that, they were quite Catholic (read Roman Catholic). They accepted among other beliefs: the Trinity, perpetual virginity of Mary, that there is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic visible Church apart from which no one can be saved, the seven sacraments including confession/penance, eucharist and transubstantiation, a ministerial priesthood/holy orders, infant baptism, and submission to the Pope as head of the Church.

From my article: The famed Baptist historian A.H. Newman drew the only conclusion warranted by the evidence.

"Waldo and his early followers had more in common with...Roman Catholicism than with any evangelical party. His views of life and doctrine were scarcely in advance of many earnest Catholics of the time."

Who Were the Waldenses? Early Evangelicals? (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num3.htm)

What is your source that the Waldenses were baptistic or "evangelical" Christians in the 12th, 13th century when they formed? According to McGoldrick they were Catholic (read Roman Catholic) to the core. Only later did they become Protestant when they joined the Reformation, and today there are about 20,000 members in Italy, and about 5,000 elsewhere. Again, not a big group. And they were never "evangelical Protestant" before the Reformation and never "baptistic" in belief. So you can throw them out as "Protestants" before the Reformation as well.

As for the St. John Chrysostom quotes and other statements, look up the context and see exactly what he is talking about. Have you done that? Is he referring to any evangelical (read baptistic) type groups? I don't think so. You have seen the numerous citations from Chrysostom on the Eucharist, Baptism, salvation by faith and works, etc.

Someday we'll have to talk on the phone, since I'm curious to see if you really believe all the stuff you put up against Catholicism online. I don't think you are dishonest, I just don't think you would defend in person one-tenth of the stuff you put online.

Evangelical Catholic Apologetics (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics)

How about we keep this on one topic: who were the Waldenses? I gotta remember to check back in this forum for replies now.

Phil Porvaznik

[JasonTE]

PhilVaz said:


You are talking about one heretic in the history of the Catholic Church, so this is not a sizeable "group" of people that disagreed with Roman Catholicism before the 16th century. If one reads what Huss actually believed, from his own writings, you will find he was quite Catholic (read Roman Catholic). So you can throw him out.

How is the size of the group or its closeness to Roman Catholic theology relevant? They separated from the RCC. However significant or insignificant their disagreements with Roman Catholicism were in comparison with other groups, the point is that they weren't part of the RCC.

Since I didn't argue that these groups were Protestants, I won't defend the concept that they were. The issue at hand is whether they were Roman Catholic.

You didn't address all of the evidence I cited, but you did address the Waldensians. The fact is that a variety of groups are known as Waldensians, so you can't refer to one set of beliefs that all of them held. Some were closer to Roman Catholic theology and others were further from it, opposing doctrines such as praying to the dead and Purgatory. They were excommunicated and were condemned by the Council of Verona in 1184 (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, editors [New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], p. 1714).


What is your source that the Waldenses were baptistic or "evangelical" Christians in the 12th, 13th century when they formed?

I didn't argue that they were Baptistic or Evangelicals. Why don't you reread what I wrote? The issue at hand is whether these groups were Roman Catholic, not whether they were Baptistic or Evangelical.

For those who don't know, Phil Porvaznik is a Catholic apologist I debated last year:

http://members.aol.com/jasonte3/debate2.htm

During the debate, he violated the rules more than fifteen times, and he never turned in his closing remarks. That behavior, combined with his misrepresentations of what I'm arguing in this thread, should give the reader some idea of his credibility.

I don't know who invited him here. Maybe it was spl_cadet, who has sought Phil's help in the past. If so, that tells us something about how well prepared spl_cadet is to defend his arguments.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[spl_cadet]

I didn't extend a formal invitation to him, though if I remember correctly, he looked interested in Tweb.
And I don't bother with people who take on my arguments on a webboard months after I've made them.

[PhilVaz]

<< During the debate, he violated the rules more than fifteen times, and he never turned in his closing remarks. That behavior, combined with his misrepresentations of what I'm arguing in this thread, should give the reader some idea of his credibility. >>

Well, I wasn't going to make a big deal (or any deal at all) in our debate about those rules. I wasn't counting the words. But we should handle that privately. Anyway let's forget all that, I have as much credibility as the research in my articles here

PhilVaz site (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics)

Neither you nor I have degrees in Theology (as far as I know from information on your AOL site you have a B.A. in English). I am finally finshing my B.S. in Computer Science, so that's the extent of my academics. Neither of us are trained formally in theology or apologetics, as most of the folks who do Internet apologetics are not. So we're all in the same boat.

Now back on topic, who were the Waldenses? You claimed there were "many groups outside the RCC that would be considered Christian" and I want to know who they were. The Waldenses were indeed Christians since they were Catholics (read Roman Catholic).

You claimed the Waldenses were excommunicated by the Catholic Church in 1184. I think you should check why they were excommunicated, they weren't excommunicated for believing contrary to Catholic doctrine. None of them opposed praying for the dead or purgatory. Check your sources on that (see the McGoldrick book which cites precisely what the Waldenses believed).

From my article using McGoldrick (the Baptist historian)

In a statement of faith submitted to the bishop of Albano, Peter Waldo affirmed his belief in transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, and infant baptism. [13] The famed Baptist historian A.H. Newman drew the only conclusion warranted by the evidence.

"Waldo and his early followers had more in common with...Roman Catholicism than with any evangelical party. His views of life and doctrine were scarcely in advance of many earnest Catholics of the time." [14]

[13] See the discussion in Rosalind B. Brooke, The Coming of the Friars (NY: Barnes and Noble, 1975), 72-73.

[14] A.H. Newman, A History of Anti-Pedobaptism from the Rise of Pedobaptism to A.D. 1609 (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1897), 41.

You also claimed they weren't baptistic, they weren't evangelical, they weren't Roman Catholic. Okay, the question becomes: what were they? You said they were Christians who didn't belong to the Catholic Church. But they were Catholic in belief and were excommunicated for disobedience to their local Bishop as far as I know. Would have to check up on that. So they were in effect disobedient Roman Catholics. Not Evangelical, not baptistic which you have admitted.

More replies when I get to the computer at the office (faster connection), maybe we can start a separate topic on "evangelical" or "protestant" or "baptistic" or whatever you want to call them "groups" before the Reformation. I don't think there are any. That is a long time for the true Christians or true Church to go "underground."

The invitation to me came from TheologyWeb admin as I said. The Email From reads ddw@TheologyWeb.com -- I assume that is admin. So someone who runs TheologyWeb saw my site and some of my articles, thought "this guy has some credibility" and wanted me to post here. :)

Phil Porvaznik

[JasonTE]

PhilVaz said:


You claimed the Waldenses were excommunicated by the Catholic Church in 1184. I think you should check why they were excommunicated, they weren't excommunicated for believing contrary to Catholic doctrine. None of them opposed praying for the dead or purgatory. Check your sources on that (see the McGoldrick book which cites precisely what the Waldenses believed).

I did cite a source, and I cited it correctly. I could cite others as well, but that isn't necessary. The Waldensians were excommunicated, which means that they weren't Roman Catholic, and there were schisms among them, including people who opposed doctrines such as praying to the dead and Purgatory.


You also claimed they weren't baptistic, they weren't evangelical, they weren't Roman Catholic. Okay, the question becomes: what were they? You said they were Christians who didn't belong to the Catholic Church. But they were Catholic in belief and were excommunicated for disobedience to their local Bishop as far as I know.

You're still misrepresenting the issue under discussion. My argument is that these people would be considered Christian by modern Roman Catholic standards. Your question of "what were they" is absurd, since we know what they were. They were Waldensians. They agreed with us on some issues and disagreed on some issues. It's not as if they have to be placed in the category of Roman Catholic or Protestant (or Eastern Orthodox). Those aren't the only professing Christian groups in existence. The Waldensians were, and are, a group of their own. They had origins in Roman Catholicism, but that doesn't mean the entire group was Roman Catholic throughout its history.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[JasonTE]

spl_cadet said:


I don't bother with people who take on my arguments on a webboard months after I've made them.

Yes you do. Solly responded to you more than a month after your original post, and you replied to him. Why, then, would you not reply to me when I posted around the same time as Solly? I think we all know why you aren't replying to what I posted.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[PhilVaz]

<< The Waldensians were excommunicated, which means that they weren't Roman Catholic >>

Incorrect, unless we are defining terms differently. Being excommunicated for disobedience to their local Bishop (i.e. their unauthorized preaching, see McGoldrick) does not make them cease to be Roman Catholic. They were simply disobedient Roman Catholics but they were Catholic (read Roman Catholic) in theology and doctrine as I have demonstrated.

Now what is your evidence they actually rejected teachings of the RCC at the time of Waldo when they were excommunicated (12th or 13th century). Quote the actual source (your dictionary or whatever). I want to see the quote from the secondary source you are using since McGoldrick (the Baptist historian) disagrees and he uses Waldenses primary sources or Waldense historians. Namely,

Giorgio Tourn, The Waldensians : The First 800 Years tr. C.P. Merlino (Torino, Italy: Claudiana Editrice, 1980)

Facts and Documents Illustrative of the History, Doctrine, and Rites of the Ancient Albigenses and Waldenses (abbreviated FD)

Pius Melia, The Origin, Persecutions, and Doctrines of the Waldenses (NY: AMS Press, 1978 reprint of 1870 edition). Melia was a Italian Waldense himself. Current Waldense scholars concur with Melia's findings.

Along with dictionaries and encyclopedias McGoldrick uses.

<< My argument is that these people would be considered Christian by modern Roman Catholic standards. Your question of "what were they" is absurd, since we know what they were. They were Waldensians. They agreed with us on some issues and disagreed on some issues. >>

Okay, name the issues you think they disagreed with Roman Catholicism on. Again, quote your source. I gave you Baptist historian McGoldrick who cites throughout his book primary source material from the Waldenses themselves and Waldense historians which affirmed all the "Roman Catholic" things I mentioned, including prayers for the dead. In other words, the Waldenses were quite Catholic (read Roman Catholic) in belief. You've said you disagree, now cite your evidence.

See the bottom for the list of McGoldrick's sources

Who Were the Waldenses? (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num3.htm)

Phil Porvaznik

[JasonTE]

PhilVaz said:


Incorrect, unless we are defining terms differently. Being excommunicated for disobedience to their local Bishop (i.e. their unauthorized preaching, see McGoldrick) does not make them cease to be Roman Catholic. They were simply disobedient Roman Catholics but they were Catholic (read Roman Catholic) in theology and doctrine as I have demonstrated.

What were they excommunicated from? If they were excommunicated from the RCC, then they ceased to be part of the RCC.


Now what is your evidence they actually rejected teachings of the RCC at the time of Waldo when they were excommunicated (12th or 13th century).

You're still misrepresenting the topic under discussion, even after multiple posts. The issue I was discussing was pre-Reformation people modern Roman Catholicism would consider Christian. For you to respond by saying that these people agreed with Roman Catholic theology, that they were a small number of people, etc. is irrelevant to what I was arguing.

The issue isn't what the Waldensians believed at the time of Waldo. The issue is whether the pre-Reformation Waldensians were ever non-Roman-Catholic. Since they were excommunicated from the RCC, and they later broke into various schisms with a variety of beliefs, they weren't Roman Catholic.

I shouldn't need to quote sources for you, but since you're ignorant of the subject:

"Around the time of Valdes's [Waldo's] death the movement was split by a series of schisms....These [Waldensian] writers [prior to the Reformation] also established a scheme of Waldensian beliefs: 'Donatist' distrust of the 'Roman' [i.e. Catholic] clergy, esp. those in mortal sin, and of sacraments offered by them; doubts regarding prayers for the dead and purgatory; rejection of oaths and of homicide; and insistence on their right to preach." (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, editors [New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], p. 1714)

"It [the Waldensian church] adhered closely to Catholic orthodoxy, though it rejected purgatory and indulgences, and allowed women to preach....Their return to a biblical Christianity made them, in a sense, precursors of the Reformers, and in 1532 they made common cause with them." (John Bowker, editor, The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions [Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1999], p. 1032)

"The early characteristics of the Waldenses rapidly developed in the period between 1184 and the death of Valdes [Waldo] soon after 1205. Chief of all was the principle that the Bible, and especially the New Testament, is the sole rule of belief and life: whatever lacks warrant in Scripture is not justified in the church....They did not consider episcopal ordination necessary, and women as well as men were granted the right to preach. Lay celebration of the Lord's Supper was also permitted in regions where the sacrament was not readily available from a Catholic priest....They rejected Masses and prayers for the dead as unbiblical, and they denied purgatory." (Williston Walker, Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz, and Robert T. Handy, A History of the Christian Church [New York, New York: Scribner, 1985], p. 307)

Also see, as another example, the index listing for "Waldensianism" in Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974). I believe you have a copy of that book. This information is so widely available, that I have to wonder how you could be ignorant of it.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[spl_cadet]

Heads up for JasonTE:
Excommunication means that you are denied the sacraments until you repent and it is lifted. You are still Catholic.

Geez, you can't even get that right, wonder what it says about your research ability? :doh:

[Bill the Cat]

OK, everyone, looks like I need to reign in this thread... As thread starter I have the right to stop the debating, so mods, I'll call that right in.

I'm a protestant, and I wanted CATHOLIC responses. While I apreciate the debate, it really does not fit the original question. Please, if you guys want to hash this out, start a new thread. The title is for Spl_Cadet or other Catholics.

Thank you all and God bless...

[JasonTE]

spl_cadet said:


Excommunication means that you are denied the sacraments until you repent and it is lifted. You are still Catholic.

They didn't return to the RCC. At the Council of Verona in 1184, they "were declared 'pertinacious and schismatic', and included with the Cathars, Humiliati, and others in the general condemnation of heretics pronounced at that Council" (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, editors [New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], p. 1714). However you define excommunication today, the Waldensians were separated from the RCC, and they went their own way, eventually breaking into various schisms. Whether they could still be considered Roman Catholic in some sense is irrelevant in this context, since even Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, etc. are considered by Roman Catholics to be part of the RCC in some sense. The Waldensians were separated enough from the RCC to fall under the condemnations of Pope Boniface VIII and the Council of Florence, which was the original context of this discussion.


Geez, you can't even get that right, wonder what it says about your research ability?

That coming from somebody who doesn't want to defend the articles he wrote for his own web site.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[Piebald]

Let's try to keep the thread on topic, keeping in mind what the thread starter originally asked

[PhilVaz]

This is the source to get. Next time I'm in Tampa USF I'll check it out if I remember. According to McGoldrick and the sources he cites, the Waldenses did not reject prayers for the dead. Whether that included purgatory, one can check the source below:

Author, etc.: Comba, Emilio, 1839-1904.
Uniform title: Histoire des Vaudois. English
Title: History of the Waldenses of Italy, from their origin to the Reformation / by Emilio Comba ; translated from the author's rev. ed. by Teofilo E. Comba.
Published: New York : AMS Press, 1978.
Description: viii, 357 p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: Translation of Histoire des Vaudois.
Reprint of the 1889 ed. published by Truslove & Shirley, London.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN: 0404161197
Subjects, general: Waldenses.
LOCATION: CALL NUMBER: STATUS:
TAMPA circulating BX4881 .C713 1978 Not checked out
collection

Valuable source since Comba is a Waldense himself. So I'll stand corrected if its established that the Waldenses rejected purgatory. Still that doesn't make them Protestants, or non-Roman Catholics in my opinion. They were excommunicated for unauthorized preaching, not for doctrinal reasons. See all the Catholic (or Roman Catholic beliefs) they held

Who Were the Waldenses? (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num3.htm)

Phil P

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 06:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=154106#post154106)
Bill the Cat:

OK, everyone, looks like I need to reign in this thread... As thread starter I have the right to stop the debating, so mods, I'll call that right in.

I'm a protestant, and I wanted CATHOLIC responses. While I apreciate the debate, it really does not fit the original question. Please, if you guys want to hash this out, start a new thread. The title is for Spl_Cadet or other Catholics.

Thank you all and God bless...

Bill,

Responding to your initial question, and as a former defender of Catholicism, I think the answer is that the RCC does believe that only through the Church may one be saved, but that one may be "anonymously" part of the church.

Here's a link to the Vatican & the documents of Vatican II, speaking directly to the issues...

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#851

It sounds like "everyone who is sincere" can be saved, and that this is because of some type of relationship with the Church! My take on this might not be correct, but those who say that I misunderstand must deal with this (and other) parts of Vatican II.

Jacob

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

The Church and non-Christians

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "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."330

842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:


All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331
843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:


Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333
845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:


Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

[brianberean]

06-03-2003 @ 05:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115719#post115719)
spl_cadet:

My bad.
As for the Orthodox, I'd give you a link about it but EWTN appears to be down at the moment.
This may or may not be the right link, so don't so me if it isn't:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/MEMBCHR.TXT

Nothing on that link that I could find. Why don't you just answer my question?

Brian

[malacon]

Hey Guys,
Im a faithful Catholic from NOLA. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (headed up by Cardinal Ratzinger sp?) a few years ago released this document on what the Church teaches on salvation of everyone. And basically its whats mentioned above in the Vatican II quotes.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html