The Identity of God.

[shunyadragon]

I have not ignored any of these statements. In fact, it was I who directed you to these statements in the first place. You are literally infantilizing the Protestant churches in a way that the Catholic Church simply does not. The call to Christian unity does not implicitly accuse of mortal sin in the way that you suppose. Otherwise, the current Church doctrine would not now explicitly restrict the traditional maxim only to those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God. This explicitly excuses those who do not believe that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God.

Read again my friend and read carefully the bottom line. Your living a delusion. You did not bring anything new to the table, but you did leave out the highlighted, which lead in to the bottom line.

The Roman church has a long history of church leaders and theologians that describe and define the problem of schism and heresy, and nothing in the Vatican II documents has changed this. The Church is still dealing with recent schism in the same manner.

[robrecht]

Read again my friend and read carefully the bottom line. Your living a delusion. You did not bring anything new to the table, but you did leave out the highlighted and the lead in to the bottom line.

What do you think I 'left out'? The obligation and sacred right of the church to evangelize all men? The fact that in ways known only to him God leads those who are ignorant of the Gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please him? In no way do I leave that out; it is of foundational importance to the accepted understanding of current church teaching.

As for bringing something to the table, I pointed you to actual documents of the church expressing current teaching and not your reference to an anonymous and outdated document which is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today". I've also tried to explain the current teaching to you but you are still relying on your out of date understanding.

[JimL]

The term God does not give us God's identity. But God nevertheless has a very real identity. This identity if it is not God, there is no God. In other words this identity is very real.

The universe is not God. And the universe, meaning: everything that exists. Now consider the question "does God exist?" The problem with this question and that the universe being everything that exists, it makes such a God part of His creation. Which of course He is not. The universe being God's creation.

Now the tautology Existence exists, is a simple self-evident truth. Now space is a type of existence. Every material thing exists in space in some way. Even the non-material things which make up the material things. (Such as electromagnetic energy and gravity.)

Now the things in space do not make space.

Now our simple tautology existence exists. Everything real has existence of some kind. Since different things are not the same things, they which have existence are not the existence which self exists.

The self existent existence is omnipresent, and possesses everything and anything which is real.

Existence defines what is true. Truth being what really exists.

The self existent existence needs no God.

Now that self existent existence is the very identity of God. God's Hebrew name means "Self Existent."

The self-existent existence is the true ontological proof of God. Being it is God's identity.

Something more here: Self existent is not caused and is eternal in not having any beginning nor end. And being eternal is a an immutability.

Noting existence defines what is true. And truth is immutable - absolute. It does not change. The law of non-contradiction.

But our created universe is temporal. Was caused, all causes are temporal. So whether there is only one discrete cause for the universe or an infinite series leading up to the universe that is now. Either case requires an uncaused cause.

Now an uncaused cause has two natures. Uncaused is eternal. And a cause is always temporal. So it requires an agent which is both the uncaused, which we identify as the self existent existence. And that the agent is also temporal being a cause. Which is another entity different from being uncaused. This agent is both uncaused and a cause. And that these two entities being both the same and different in being a common uncaused. The common uncaused nature constitutes a third entity being an uncaused essence.

We have the self existent existence.
Which precedes everything - which constitutes the fundamental order - which is both uncaused and a cause in of itself.
Both the uncause existence and the uncaused order/cause are two entities being one uncaused essence constituting a third entity which make those three the one entity we know as God.

Self Existent, uncaused entity (The Hebrew Name: Yahweh.)
The uncaused order/cause being both uncaused and temporal. (the Logos)
And the one uncaused essence - which makes the three entities the one entity. (the Holy Spirit)

The problem with this is the human baggage you apply to the philosophical discription. Being, God, Yahweh, logos, holy spirit, are all human terms which imply much more than an eternal, self existing, uncaused essense.

[shunyadragon]

What do you think I 'left out'? The obligation and sacred right of the church to evangelize all men? The fact that in ways known only to him God leads those who are ignorant of the Gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please him? In no way do I leave that out; it is of foundational importance to the accepted understanding of current church teaching.

As for bringing something to the table, I pointed you to actual documents of the church expressing current teaching and not your reference to an anonymous and outdated document which is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today". I've also tried to explain the current teaching to you but you are still relying on your out of date understanding.

"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."

[robrecht]

I studied to be Priest of the Roman church for about a year when I finished High School, and concept of what it is to be save was of interest to me. The following a brief reference concerning which I will cite more, including Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominus_Iesus

...

© Copyright Original Source

I was raised in the Roman Church and studied for a year for the Saint Franciscan order in 1965. ...

Have you done any formal study of Catholic doctrine or theology since college seminary as a freshman in 1965? Care to cite any theologians who defend your interpretation of current Catholic teaching?

[shunyadragon]

Have you done any formal study of Catholic doctrine or theology since college seminary as a freshman in 1965? Care to cite any theologians who defend your interpretation of current Catholic teaching?

I have no problem with the Vatican II and Catechism, but I will check on references.

[robrecht]

I have no problem with the Vatican II and Catechism, but I will check on references.

As I mentioned above, it will also be helpful to check on the interpretation of those who authored the documents.

[shunyadragon]

Have you done any formal study of Catholic doctrine or theology since college seminary as a freshman in 1965? Care to cite any theologians who defend your interpretation of current Catholic teaching?

I believe your just dodging the bullet of reality of the doctrine as written. In the formal training I had at the time the Vatican II was the biggest thing since the invention of the wheel were studied in detail.

I consider R C Sproul gives a good explanation of Vatican II. This whole article is worth a read.



Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego wrote this concerning 'Salvation outside the Church.

[robrecht]

I believe your just dodging the bullet of reality of the doctrine as written. In the formal training I had at the time the Vatican II was the biggest thing since the invention of the wheel were studied in detail.

I consider R C Sproul gives a good explanation of Vatican II. This whole article is worth a read.



Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego wrote this concerning 'Salvation outside the Church.

[shunyadragon]

Unfortunately, your sources do not support your theses (#22):

I believe the sources I cited support me well. You are avoiding the bottom line.

and it does not limit this possibility only to those who have no knowledge of the One True Church, and those below the age of consent or otherwise not able to comprehend God and the One True Church (i.e. the mentally ill or incapacitated)

Please clarify the above highlighted as to where it specifies other cases?

Pope John XXIII did not need to say it the Vatican II documents are clear.

"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."

There are no other possibilities for salvation in Vatican II, nor the Catachism. You asked for references and I gave them to you.

Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego wrote this concerning 'Salvation outside the Church' is a sufficient reference to justify my case. He is a theologian of authority who cited the church fathers to support the case, and as far as I can find no objections to what he wrote. "However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity."

[robrecht]

I believe the sources I cited support me well. You are avoiding the bottom line.

What 'bottom line' are you referring to?

Please clarify the above highlighted as to where it specifies other cases?

It does not highlight other cases. Nor need it. Nowhere does it say that there are no other possibilities. That is the point. In addition, by saying "it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church, it certainly allows for those who have only been partially but not fully initiated into the Catholic church, hence those who have been baptized into Christ in other Christian churches.

Pope John XXIII did not need to say it the Vatican II documents are clear.

Their meaning is indeed very clear to its authors. Apparently not as clear to you.

"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."

There are no other possibilities for salvation in Vatican II, nor the Catachism. You asked for references and I gave them to you.

Once again, you are ignoring the Protestant churches as instruments of salvation. And, once again, the limitation above is a much higher bar than what you have admitted to: 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. Protestants, Muslims, followers of other religions, agnostics and atheists who know about the Church, and yet who do not believe it to be founded as necessary by God are in no way excluded.

Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego wrote this concerning 'Salvation outside the Church' is a sufficient reference to justify my case. He is a theologian of authority who cited the church fathers to support the case, and as far as I can find no objections to what he wrote. "However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity."

Once again, he is speaking of those who commit the sins of heresy or schism, but, as you know, we are not speaking of those cases, nor is the catechism when it explicitly says that "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 that it charges with sin those on both sides of schism, 'though without making any judgment of mortal sin.

I have already responded to your several citations of this diocesan tract. Brom is indeed a bishop who allowed the tract to be posted, and even ignoring the scandal that surrounds him, I am not sure of his theological credentials, but he does not meet the criteria I suggested to you several times now, namely the theologians who wrote the documents that you are misinterpreting.

[shunyadragon]

What 'bottom line' are you referring to?

"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."

There are no other possibilities for salvation in Vatican II, nor the Catachism. You asked for references and I gave them to you.

Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego wrote this concerning 'Salvation outside the Church' is a sufficient reference to justify my case. He is a theologian of authority who cited the church fathers to support the case, and as far as I can find no objections to what he wrote. "However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity."

It does not highlight other cases. Nor need it. Nowhere does it say that there are no other possibilities. That is the point. In addition, by saying "it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church, it certainly allows for those who have only been partially but not fully initiated into the Catholic church, hence those who have been baptized into Christ in other Christian churches.

Your arguing a fallacy looking for ghosts of a negative. I will continue to highlight as you continue to sidestep the references. The Vatican II and Catechism are specific as to the circumstances that one may be saved 'Outside the Church.' Still waiting . . . for you to refer specifically, with references as to what the other possible circumstances there are for salvation 'Outside the Church.'

The issue of 'Salvation' is critical and the documents are specific and need be.

Their meaning is indeed very clear to its authors. Apparently not as clear to you.

Their meaning is indeed very clear to its authors. Apparently not as clear to you. Still waiting . . .

Once again, you are ignoring the Protestant churches as instruments of salvation.

I am not ignoring it. I responded fully to your argument ignoring the bottom line of Salvation Outside the Church.

And, once again, the limitation above is a much higher bar than what you have admitted to: 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. Protestants, Muslims, followers of other religions, agnostics and atheists who know about the Church, and yet who do not believe it to be founded as necessary by God are in no way excluded.

If you wish to define a higher bar, you need to be more specific in citing sources for this higher bar. I have more than cited sufficient that the bar of salvation has not changed

[quote] Once again, he is speaking of those who commit the sins of heresy or schism, but, as you know, we are not speaking of those cases, nor is the catechism when it explicitly says that "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 that it charges with sin those on both sides of schism, 'though without making any judgment of mortal sin.

Once again and again and again we are dealing heresy and schism as to one of the specific reasons that the bar has not changed. 'There is no Salvation Outside the church, unless one is involuntarily ignorant of the One True Church.'

I have already responded to your several citations of this diocesan tract. Brom is indeed a bishop who allowed the tract to be posted, and even ignoring the scandal that surrounds him, I am not sure of his theological credentials, but he does not meet the criteria I suggested to you several times now, namely the theologians who wrote the documents that you are misinterpreting.

Fallacy, Attacking the 'source,' and failing to respond to the message, which is clear. If you question his qualifications, check his biography.

[robrecht]

Added comment:

... Fallacy, Attacking the 'source,' and failing to respond to the message, which is clear.

I most certainly did respond to the message: "Once again, he is speaking of those who commit the sins of heresy or schism, but, as you know, we are not speaking of those cases, nor is the catechism when it explicitly says that "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 that it charges with sin those on both sides of schism, 'though without making any judgment of mortal sin."

[robrecht]

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 ...

Still waiting . . . for you to refer specifically, with references as to what the other possible circumstances there are for salvation 'Outside the Church.'

I have already cited the example of those born into and raised in Protestant churches. Unlike you, I am not going to continue to cite this over and over again.

If you wish to define a higher bar, you need to be more specific in citing sources for this higher bar. I have more than cited sufficient that the bar of salvation has not changed

I have but will not continue to cite this higher bar: "... knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

Their meaning is indeed very clear to its authors. Apparently not as clear to you. Still waiting . . .

Please cite an author of Lumen Gentium that agrees with your interpretation.

Otherwise, it appears to be pointless to keep reading your repetitious misinterpretations. You cannot admit that your initial source was not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today. I do not expect you to see how your repeated misinterpretations of actual, current documents of the church are also out of date and not the standard interpretation.

[shunyadragon]

Added comment:I most certainly did respond to the message: "Once again, he is speaking of those who commit the sins of heresy or schism, but, as you know, we are not speaking of those cases, nor is the catechism when it explicitly says that "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 that it charges with sin those on both sides of schism, 'though without making any judgment of mortal sin."

Disagree, this part of the argument you are choosing to sidestep around. I addressed this before: "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 that it charges with sin those on both sides of schism, 'though without making any judgment of mortal sin." This refers to those as yet ignorant of the Church below the age of consent, or otherwise without knowledge of the Roman Church. Your repeating yourself with answering the important questions.