The Identity of God.

[shunyadragon]

Lumen Gentium that agrees with your interpretation.

There is not one author for the Lumen Gentium . This document clearly states my case, as well as the Vatican II. I gave adequate sources and your ignoring them.

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 I do not expect you to see how your repeated misinterpretations of actual, current documents of the church are also out of date and not the standard interpretation.

Otherwise, it appears to be pointless to keep reading your repetitious misinterpretations.

"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]

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.

You did not address it well. No, it does not merely refer to those below the age of consent, which would be a nonissue, since you admit that the extra ecclesiam phrase would no longer even be applicable to those below the age of consent, so why would the issue of Protestant churches being instruments of salvation even apply here? But the catechism clearly does not merely limit itself to those below the age of consent because it explicitly speaks of 'those that are brought up in the faith of Christ.' You seem to want to say this only applies to those who are brought up in the faith of Christ up to but not beyond the age of reason, but that is merely your reading your own view into the text.

[robrecht]

Ter is not one author for the Lumen Gentium .

No, there were seven, but I only asked you to name one that agrees with your interpretation.

[shunyadragon]

No, there were seven, but I only asked you to name one that agrees with your interpretation.

Your being far to simplistic as to wrote the Lumen Gentium. In reality sections were written by groups and contributors like Marie Rosaire Gagnebet who were influential in certain chapters in consultation and reviewed by the Bishops, who would often send sections back with comments for revision. In reality it was written and redacted collectively by the hierarchy of the Roman Church. Pope Benedict XVI was also involved at the time.

[robrecht]

Your being far to simplistic as to wrote the Lumen Gentium. In reality sections were written by groups and contributors like Marie Rosaire Gagnebet who were influential in certain chapters in consultation and reviewed by the Bishops, who would often send sections back with comments for revision. In reality it was written and redacted collectively by the hierarchy of the Roman Church. Pope Benedict XVI was also involved at the time.

Of course, there was lots of consultation, but seven primary authors. If you like, just pick the one most responsible for our question under discussion. Or any single author, whichever one you prefer.

[shunyadragon]

[shunyadragon]

Of course, there was lots of consultation, but seven primary authors. If you like, just pick the one most responsible for our question under discussion. Or any single author, whichever one you prefer.

Disagree this is an oversimplification. Please note what Pope Benedict XVI wrote.

[robrecht]

Frank, why don't you cite the actual document, rather than this inaccurate press report, for which you do not even supply a link? If you would cite the actual document, or at least read it, you would quickly see your error.

[robrecht]

Disagree this is an oversimplification. Please note what Pope Benedict XVI wrote.

Oh my, you can't even find a single author that agrees with your interpretation of this document?

[shunyadragon]

Frank, why don't you cite the actual document, rather than this inaccurate press report, for which you do not even supply a link? If you would cite the actual document, or at least read it, you would quickly see your error.

If you disagree cite the document and show me the error.

[shunyadragon]

Oh my, you can't even find a single author that agrees with your interpretation of this document?

Oh my!!!!!! The document was not written by just seven men. If you believe so please site your source, and be specific about what they wrote, names and references..

[robrecht]

Shuny's inaccurate press report:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...tiones_en.html

And, of course, Dominus Iesus said the same thing:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...-iesus_en.html

[robrecht]

Oh my!!!!!! The document was not written by just seven men. If you believe so please site your source, and be specific about what they wrote, names and references..

I did not limit you to the seven principle authors; cite any of the many more who were consulted or otherwise substantively contributed to the final content. Just one out of however many you think contributed to the drafts or final version.

[robrecht]

If you disagree cite the document and show me the error.

Is it really too much to expect that you read the documents that you say support your misinterpretation?

[shunyadragon]

Please note the following from the text below - "The response, based on the teaching of John XXIII and Paul VI, is very clear: the Second Vatican Council did not intend to change - and therefore has not changed - the previously held doctrine on the Church."