The Identity of God.

[shunyadragon]

What is this, the tenth time you've cite these paragraphs from the catechism, which I pointed you to, by the way, to get you to understand that your source was not in fact an infallible document or the Roman church today, which you've still failed to admit, and now you will go on denying that your press report was inaccurate and should not replace a reading of the actual document. It would indeed help if you had a better understanding of the church's doctrine on the church, but I specifically excluded this from the topic of our discussion at the outset. If you claim this has been the topic of our discussion, then this is just another documented misunderstanding on your part. .

Your determination of the meaningfulness of my responses are no more reliable.

It remains a part of the discussion since the very beginning, and will always remain a part of the discussion. No you have not demonstrated that it is no longer an infallible document of the church as reinforced by Benedict XVI. It was only nuanced and clarified , by the Vatican II and other later documents to clarify specific 'Salvation' outside the Roman Church, which I have cited in detail.

I will cite it 100 times if you continue to avoid the fact that it remains the doctrine that defines 'Salvation in the Roman Church.' 200 times if necessary, 300?

Still waiting for you to provide specific and accurate references that allow for 'Salvation' beyond that which I have specifically cited in the Vatican II, and other supported and relevant documents.

IT is very much the topic of the discussion. Yes, 'the document[s Vatican II and Lumen Gentium] does however refer to development of the doctrine as in deepening, making explicit what was previously only assumed, and clarifying what was previously uncertain,' but this refers to the role of the church concerning ecumenism, NOT Salvation. Concerning the issue of 'Salvation Outside the Church' the documents clarified specifically who may be saved outside the Roman Church.

Again the purpose of 'Instruments of Salvation' are to lead the 'separated brethren' back to the 'One True Church' and Salvation within the Roman Church.

"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." Pope Benedict XVI

"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]

Your determination of the meaningfulness of my responses are no more reliable.

It remains a part of the discussion since the very beginning, and will always remain a part of the discussion.

I will cite it 100 times if you continue to avoid the fact that it remains the doctrine that defines 'Salvation in the Roman Church.' 200 times if necessary, 300?

Still waiting for you to provide specific and accurate references that allow for 'Salvation' beyond that which I have specifically cited in the Vatican II, and other supported and relevant documents.

I don't believe I have said that your responses are not meaninful, nor have I called you deluded, but I do believe it is pointless to quote the same document even 100 times, let alone 200 or 300 times, once it has been established that we understand it differently. And I have never denied or avoided that 'it' remains parts of the doctrine of the church. That is merely another misrepresentation. But if you do not want to respond to my specific questions then I'm not sure you're really part of the same discussion.

[shunyadragon]

I don't believe I have said that your responses are not meaninful, nor have I called you deluded, but I do believe it is pointless to quote the same document even 100 times, let alone 200 or 300 times, once it has been established that we understand it differently. And I have never denied or avoided that 'it' remains parts of the doctrine of the church. That is merely another misrepresentation. But if you do not want to respond to my specific questions then I'm not sure you're really part of the same discussion.

It has not been established that [the Roman Church] understands it differently. I have responded to your specific questions and claims. Your statements and quotations have referred to the nature of attributes of salvation outside the One True Church that lead the 'separated breathern' that would lead them to 'Salvation' within the One True Church.

I am still waiting for specific references, other then I cited and defined in the Vatican II, concerning 'Salvation' outside the Roman Church. This you have consistently failed to do and ignored or sidestepped references I gave from Brom, Benedict XVI and others that confirm my view. Benedict XVII was very specific in his letter in distinguishing the commitment to Ecumenism, and specifically restating the Doctrines of 'Salvation' which have not changed.

I think you need to read Benedict XVII letter again carefully:

"It is precisely this change of terminology in the description of the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church which has given rise to the most varied interpretations, above all in the field of ecumenism.

[robrecht]

It has not been established that [the Roman Church] understands it differently. I have responded to your specific questions and claims. Your statements and quotations have referred to the nature of attributes of salvation outside the One True Church that lead the 'separated breathern' that would lead them to 'Salvation' within the One True Church.

I am still waiting for specific references, other then I cited and defined in the Vatican II, concerning 'Salvation' outside the Roman Church. This you have consistently failed to do and ignored or sidestepped references I gave from Brom, Benedict XVI and others that confirm my view. Benedict XVII was very specific in his letter in distinguishing the commitment to Ecumenism, and specifically restating the Doctrines of 'Salvation' which have not changed.

I think you need to read Benedict XVII letter again carefully:

"It is precisely this change of terminology in the description of the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church which has given rise to the most varied interpretations, above all in the field of ecumenism.

You may think you have responded to my questions, but let me restate them so as to avoid any continuing confusion on your part:

Where does the Roman Catholic Church currently teach that Protestants must convert to Catholicism in order to be saved? Where does it limit its interpretation of 'those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God, but who nonetheless refuse either to enter it or to remain in it' to those below the age of consent and those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated?

You may believe this is implied, you may believe that Pope Francis will be forced to teach this at some point in the future, or you may even find press reports saying that he has already done so, but until can point to specific texts that say this clearly, I see no reason to accept your interpretation over that of many others who I consider much more qualified to interpret Church teaching.

[shunyadragon]

You may think you have responded to my questions, but let me restate them so as to avoid any continuing confusion on your part:

Where does the Roman Catholic Church currently teach that Protestants must convert to Catholicism in order to be saved? Where does it limit its interpretation of 'those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God, but who nonetheless refuse either to enter it or to remain in it' to those below the age of consent and those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated?

I actually have responded to all this. What you have failed to do is on the positive show specifically where there are any other allowances for 'Salvation other then what is specifically defined in Vatican II. Still waiting . . .

You may believe this is implied, . . .

It is not implied, 'Salvation is specifically defined:

"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."

you may believe that Pope Francis will be forced to teach this at some point in the future, or you may even find press reports saying that he has already done so, but until can point to specific texts that say this clearly, I see no reason to accept your interpretation over that of many others who I consider much more qualified to interpret Church teaching.

This is my view that in history Popes have addressed this issue at one time or another, and not central to the argument. The only relevant point at present, he has not made any effort at this present to deny or alter the doctrine to specifically include the possibility of schismatic Protestants may be 'Saved' in any manner other than ignorance of the One True Church. For that matter no Pope in history has made any statement on this.

Source: Vatican II

Ecumenism and the Roman Church

The Introduction states the desire for ecumenism, but . . .

The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.

From CHAPTER I - CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES ON ECUMENISM

The Church, then, is God's only flock; it is like a standard lifted high for the nations to see it:(16) for it serves all mankind through the Gospel of peace(17) as it makes its pilgrim way in hope toward the goal of the fatherland above.(18)

In summary

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.

. . . all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Repeat, concerning Mentally Ill and others without knowledge of the One True Church:

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6C.HTM

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Source: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20120308_ladaria_en.html

It is precisely this universality that constitutes the Church as a universal sacrament of salvation (nn. 62-79). The question arises whether the church has significance only for its members or for everyone. Given the fact that the second answer is more relevant, the need of the Church for salvation is understood in two ways: the need to belong to her and the need of ministry of the Church at the service of the coming of the kingdom of God. Enlightened by the new perspectives offered by the Second Vatican Council, the old statement of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus illuminates the question of the affiliation to the Church as the body of Christ,

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

I have no problem with this as still enforsing EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALLUS. It just gives some explanation of interpretation details. No fundamental changes in the basic doctrine. Note my citation from Vatican II.

Source: Vatican II

67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.

68. In contrast to Pius XII, the council refused to speak of a votum implicitum (implicit desire) and applied the concept of the votum only to the explicit desire of catechumens to belong to the Church (LG 14). With regard to non-Christians, it said that they are ordered in diverse ways to the people of God. In accord with the different ways with which the salvific will of God embraces non-Christians, the council distinguished four groups: first, Jews; second, Muslims; third, those who without fault are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and do not know the Church but who search for God with a sincere heart and try to fulfill his will as known through conscience; fourth, those who without fault have not yet reached an express knowledge of God but who nonetheless try to lead a good life (LG 16).
69. The gifts which God offers all men for directing themselves to salvation are rooted, according to the council, in his universal salvific will (LG 2, 3, 26; AG 7). The fact that even non-Christians are ordered to the people of God is rooted in the fact that the universal call to salvation includes the vocation of all men to the catholic unity of the people of God (LG 13). The council holds that the close relationship of both vocations is rooted in the unique mediation of Christ, who in his body that is the Church makes himself present in our midst (LG 14).
70. Thus the original meaning is restored to the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus, namely, that of exhorting the members of the Church to be faithful.31 Once this expression is integrated into the more universal extra Christum nulla salus, it is no longer in contradiction to the universal call of all men to salvation.

© Copyright Original Source

As far as this goes the doctrine remains intact. The concept of the Universal call of all men to the One True Church is obviously not in contradiction with the doctrine. The doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus being nuanced and clarified in no way precludes that it does not remain valid.

[shunyadragon]

Question of age of concent:

Source: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/sacraments/baptism-infants-and-salvation/

Whether adults or infants, we cannot accept Christ or even salvation without God's grace. However as adults we can freely reject God's grace and salvation through sin. Baptism does not earn or guarantee our salvation. Even though eternal life in Christ Jesus (salvation) is a free gift, we can still earn death (damnation) through serious, willful sin (Rom 6:23; Heb 10:26-27; 1 John 5:16-17; Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:9-10).

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

Repeat, concerning Mentally Ill and others without knowledge of the One True Church:

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6C.HTM

...

© Copyright Original Source

It is pointless to repeat this. No one denies that the Catholic church has long taught that Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent, presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, and of its opposition to God's law, and that it implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Nor is it disputed that unintentional ignorance, external pressure, or pathological disorders can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. This is indeed part of the reason why the Church does not consider Protestants, Muslims, atheists, etc, to be be necessarily guilty of a mortal sin of heresy or schism since they do not consider not belonging to the Catholic Church to be sinful, opposed to God's law, etc. Thus the extra ecclesiam phrase does not apply to these people because they do not believe that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God. This is why I have asked you to show where the Catholic Church limits its interpretation of 'those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God, but who nonetheless refuse either to enter it or to remain in it' only to those below the age of consent and those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated. Do you now understand what I have asked you for?

[robrecht]

I actually have responded to all this. What you have failed to do is on the positive show specifically where there are any other allowances for 'Salvation other then what is specifically defined in Vatican II. Still waiting . . .

Sorry, but I have never claimed that the Church teaches of other allowances for "salvation other than what is specifically defined in Vatican II". Must be a typo on your part. I find it hard to believe that you have completely failed to understand my position all this time.

[Deleted: Quotation of same paragraphs from catechism for the 12th time]

This is my view that in history Popes have addressed this issue at one time or another, and not central to the argument. The only relevant point at present, he has not made any effort at this present to deny or alter the doctrine to specifically include the possibility of schismatic Protestants may be 'Saved' in any manner other than ignorance of the One True Church. For that matter no Pope in history has made any statement on this.

No effort is required on his part to alter the common understanding of Vatican II that he himself holds.

[robrecht]

Source: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20120308_ladaria_en.html

It is precisely this universality that constitutes the Church as a universal sacrament of salvation (nn. 62-79). The question arises whether the church has significance only for its members or for everyone. Given the fact that the second answer is more relevant, the need of the Church for salvation is understood in two ways: the need to belong to her and the need of ministry of the Church at the service of the coming of the kingdom of God. Enlightened by the new perspectives offered by the Second Vatican Council, the old statement of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus illuminates the question of the affiliation to the Church as the body of Christ,

© Copyright Original Source

Note the part about representing all humankind, ie, even those who are not members of the Catholic Church, in a way that, in accord with God's will, is efficacious for all men. Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

[robrecht]

Question of age of concent:

Source: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/sacraments/baptism-infants-and-salvation/

Whether adults or infants, we cannot accept Christ or even salvation without God's grace. However as adults we can freely reject God's grace and salvation through sin. Baptism does not earn or guarantee our salvation. Even though eternal life in Christ Jesus (salvation) is a free gift, we can still earn death (damnation) through serious, willful sin (Rom 6:23; Heb 10:26-27; 1 John 5:16-17; Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:9-10).

© Copyright Original Source

Also pointless to keep repeating this. Issue is not whether or not Church condemns unbaptized babies. I have asked you to show where the Catholic Church limits its interpretation of 'those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God, but who nonetheless refuse either to enter it or to remain in it' only to those below the age of consent and those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated.

[shunyadragon]

Note the part about representing all humankind, ie, even those who are not members of the Catholic Church, in a way that, in accord with God's will, is efficacious for all men. Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

Likely, that is the claim of the Roman Church. So what?

[shunyadragon]

Also pointless to keep repeating this. Issue is not whether or not Church condemns unbaptized babies. I have asked you to show where the Catholic Church limits its interpretation of 'those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God, but who nonetheless refuse either to enter it or to remain in it' only to those below the age of consent and those unable to comprehend God and the One True Church, ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated.

I already gave you the references that limit 'Salvation' as defined by the Vatican II. There are absolutely no other exceptions indicated. The problem is that you have consistently failed to provide any references that there are any documentation where other exceptions to 'Salvation' in the Roman Church only.'

Ah . . . where are these references to the supposed seven authors?

I have given Brom as a reference to the problem of heresy and schism, and your dodging it. It is a legitimate authoritative reference by a major theologian.

Pope Benedict XVI's letter is also clear and specific.