[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

Of course. Catholic Tradition states that the sacraments of Holy Orders, Confirmation, and Anounting of the Sick are all done by laying on of hands. You have to look at the context of the Scripture to see which Sacrament is being performed, if any sacrament at all.



No. Bishops still ordain men today by laying on of hands and they don't give up their position. And like I said, laying on of hands doesn't always indicate Holy Orders.

Can you show me one time though where it did mean this. In scripture, that is.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Can you show me one time though where it did mean this. In scripture, that is.

I'm sure I can, but I'm not going to look for it tonight. I'm too tired and I want to devote some time to other threads while I'm still on. I'll get back to you on that later.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

I'm sure I can, but I'm not going to look for it tonight. I'm too tired and I want to devote some time to other threads while I'm still on. I'll get back to you on that later.

NP at all.

[milkmandog]

ok reed get ready to become orthodox:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

http://thecatholicchurchandsalvation...m-sanctam.html

[Reedolo]

I am aware of what Unam Sanctam says (and I do not agree with it), but can you show that this document is ex Cathedra? If it's not ex Cathedra, then papal infallibility does not apply.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

The reason I did so much research on the teaching "outside the church there is no salvation" is because what was stated in the teaching and what the vast majority of Catholics I spoke to said it meant, were two different things. Somewhere along the way, the teaching had either gotten changed/twisted/misunderstood, and I wanted to find out which it was for myself. The belief in baptism by desire is simple to understand and I have not heard anyone state it any differently than you have, so there really was no need to go research it. I have, however, at least done a cursory look into just to be sure what everyone seemed to be saying was what was taught. I didn't find anything contradictory, so I saw no need to spend any more time on it.

Fair enough. However, the link between these functions of baptism and Outside the Church There is No Salvation is crucial and explains why we believe that some individuals can be saved who are not visible members of the Church. You don't need to accept it, but it would at least be more honest to recognize that this is the Catholic position instead of saying that we are contradicting past teaching by saying that some individual non-Catholic might have a chance at salvation. Because that's just not quite the case.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

The church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, but I don't find this to be correct according to God's word, which is always my "final authority". From what I have read, I don't find that such a teaching was part of the early church (the idea of baptism of desire or by blood), especially in light of some of the statements which claim that even if one dies for the name of Christ (baptism of blood) they cannot be saved if outside the church. This seems to make a non-catholic able to be saved by baptism of blood an impossibility.

I understand the position and respectfully disagree on a number of levels with this statement. As for your statement that you found about it, I'm not sure which one you are referring to, or what it actually says. But I have to disagree about the early Church not believing in these extra forms of the one baptism. Of course, our definitions of what exactly the early Church is, is also probably different too though. I would have to disagree with your denial of the necessity of baptism as I actually think Scripture is more than adequately clear on the matter. Personally I believe what you use to deny the necessity of baptism is, in fact, references to baptism of desire and/or blood. But that is a debate for another place I think.

TERTULLIAN - de baptismo in the Enchiridion Patristicum:

"In truth we also have a second laver which is the same as the first, namely that of blood, concerning which Our Lord said, "And I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized' (Luke 12:50) after He had already been baptized; for He came by water and blood as John wrote, that He might be baptized by water and glorified by blood, likewise too that He might make us called by water and chosen by blood; He poured forth these two baptisms from the wound dug in His side so that those who believed in His blood might be cleansed by water and those who were cleansed by water might bear His blood; this is the baptism which takes the place of the laver which has not been received and restores what was lost."

ST. AUGUSTINE, (City of God, XIII.7):

"For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of Baptism. For He Who said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven"; and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it."

ST AUGUSTINE - De Baptismo:

"The same blessed Cyprian sees no small proof that suffering can sometimes take the place of Baptism, from the [case of] the thief to whom, though he was not baptized, it was over and over I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply what was lacking of Baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if it happens that because of circumstances of time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of Baptism."


ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM:

"If anyone does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation, excepting only martyrs who gain the kingdom even without water."

St. John Chrysostome:

"Do not be surprised that I should equate martyrdom with baptism; for here too the spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvellous and astonishing remission of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected; and just as those who are baptized by water, so, too, those who suffer martyrdom are cleansed with their own blood."

St. Ambrose:

"But I hear that you grieve since he [Valentinian] did not receive the sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is in your power but the desire, the petition? But even for a long time he had this desire, that when he came into Italy, he should be baptized, and recently he made known that he wanted to be baptized by me, and so he thought I should be summoned for this reason, before other reasons. Surely because he asked, he received, and hence there is the Scripture: "The just man by whatsoever death he may be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest".... If [martyrs] are washed in their own blood, his devotedness and intention washed him."

I hesitate to bother with too many more because I'm sure that you already disagree with these 4th centuries Doctors being considered "early Church". But these are some of the main doctrinal giants up to that time, after Scripture of course. And their testimony I think is worth consideration. I think we would be hard pressed, in such a short time as the first and second centuries, to find enough theologians who would have been able to write and expound upon all the doctrines in the Church. I think the fact that this was a firmly established belief by the 4th century makes it safe to assume its validity in the early Church.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

I am aware of what Unam Sanctam says (and I do not agree with it), but can you show that this document is ex Cathedra? If it's not ex Cathedra, then papal infallibility does not apply.

Honestly, I think you are already more in line with the Eastern Orthodox already as you clearly don't accept the doctrine of the Papacy and infallibility as it was taught. Simply Ex Cathedra statements are not the only things that have infallibility attached to them. Saying that something MUST be declared Ex Cathedra to be part of Catholic teaching is simply an excuse for not believing in a certain Catholic doctrine. The Church is infallible when teaching on faith & morals in the cases of
- a General Council
- the general consent of the bishops all over the world confirmed by the Pope
- when the Pope as teacher and guide of the Church proposes to the universal Church a doctrine of faith or morals
- When it declares that any opinion on faith or morals is false
- When she canonizes a saint

These are all cases in which infallibility is in action. But further still, it is quite a mistaken belief to think that one does not have to believe something that the Church has taught upon simply because it was not done so using the highest levels of infallibility. Whenever the Church teaches something that is not contrary to past teaching, the faithful are bound to it. This becomes clear in Pope Pius XII's writing about the need to accept all the encyclicals of the popes as authoritative:

Humani Generis August 12, 1950: #20
"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."

In fact, the idea that Catholics are only to accept that which is infallible was specifically condemned in the Syllabus of Errors:

Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX, 22. “The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.” Condemned Proposition -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.

This comes from a belief in the ordinary, and extra-ordinary magisterium. The extra-ordinary magisterium is made up of those infallible proclamations of the popes. The ordinary magisterium the authority of the universal teaching of the Fathers, Doctors, Bishops, Popes, etc., consistent in all times and places. All Catholics are obliged to believe the teachings of the Church, whether they come to us through the extraordinary or the ordinary magisterium.

Back to infallibility for a second. Not only does it pertain to what I posted above, but also to the general disciplines of the Church insofar as they are based on doctrines of the Church. This is to mean, for example, that a legitimate Mass, can not contain any type of error in it (this is another reason I can't accept the Novus Ordo Church and their mass). For reference to what I am talking about:

_______________________________________________

Van Noort on the infallibility of disciplinary provisions:

"Assertion 3: The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.

By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would be rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

The Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

Proof:

1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ's doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.

2. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism. (16)

Corollary

The well-known axiom, Lex orandi est lex credendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief), is a special application of the doctrine of the Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters. This axiom says in effect that formulae of prayer approved for public use in the universal Church cannot contain errors against faith or morals. But it would be quite wrong to conclude from this that all the historical facts which are recorded here and there in the lessons of the Roman Breviary, or all the explanations of scriptural passages which are used in the homilies of the Breviary must be taken as infallibly true.(17) As far as the former are concerned, those particular facts are not an object of infallibility since they have no necessary connection with revelation. As for the latter, the Church orders their recitation not because they are certainly true, but because they are edifying.
___________________________________________________________


That was a lot to digest I'm sure, and I'm also sure many of you didn't take the time to read it. I can't blame you. But for Reed, if you have any true wish to stay Catholic then you need to understand this. Otherwise there is no reason for you not to become Eastern Orthodox, or Jewish or Muslim or whatever else you might fancy.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Fair enough. However, the link between these functions of baptism and Outside the Church There is No Salvation is crucial and explains why we believe that some individuals can be saved who are not visible members of the Church. You don't need to accept it, but it would at least be more honest to recognize that this is the Catholic position instead of saying that we are contradicting past teaching by saying that some individual non-Catholic might have a chance at salvation. Because that's just not quite the case.



I understand the position and respectfully disagree on a number of levels with this statement. As for your statement that you found about it, I'm not sure which one you are referring to, or what it actually says. But I have to disagree about the early Church not believing in these extra forms of the one baptism. Of course, our definitions of what exactly the early Church is, is also probably different too though. I would have to disagree with your denial of the necessity of baptism as I actually think Scripture is more than adequately clear on the matter. Personally I believe what you use to deny the necessity of baptism is, in fact, references to baptism of desire and/or blood. But that is a debate for another place I think.

.

I am being honest about the Catholic position. Look at the following:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in
it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.


If one cannot be saved, even if they shed blood in the name of Christ (baptism of blood) UNLESS they have persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church, then how could a Protestant be saved since obviously they have not been in unity with the Catholic church?

There are other writings speaking of this, but I can't find them quickly (I really have to go through my bookmarks and get rid of junk). I don't see how the idea of baptism of blood can be accepted when the teaching is that even if one dies a martyr's death for the name of CHrist, it is not enough if they were outside the Catholic faith.

[theguidedheart]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

This is something that I totally disagree with, and it is not in line with what the Church teaches today. If this statement was really ex Cathedra, then I am going to have to consider to re-thinking my belief in papal infallibility and converting to Eastern Orthodox Catholicism.

from the catholic encyclopedia, which gives a good overview of this document at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm

'The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation. The pope further emphasizes the higher position of the spiritual in comparison with the secular order. From these premises he then draws conclusions concerning the relation between the spiritual power of the Church and secular authority. The main propositions of the Bull are the following: First, the unity of the Church and its necessity for salvation are declared and established by various passages from the Bible and by reference to the one Ark of the Flood, and to the seamless garment of Christ. The pope then affirms that, as the unity of the body of the Church so is the unity of its head established in Peter and his successors. Consequently, all who wish to belong to the fold of Christ are placed under the dominion of Peter and his successors. When, therefore, the Greeks and others say they are not subject to the authority of Peter and his successors, they thus acknowledge that they do not belong to Christ's sheep.'

[theguidedheart]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

Eastern Orthodoxy has never accepted papal infallibility, and they have valid Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments. The main cause of the Great Schism was over the issue of papal authority.

That may be true generally speaking Reed, but I think there is alot more political history thrown into the mix to muddy the waters... alot of people seem to react harshly to the ecumenism efforts of VII, but in my opinion I think the efforts made there have advanced the relationship between Rome and the East a great deal - I can almost hear the disagreements already ... but before VII there was hardly even a glance at each other, small steps are still steps...it seems that the fruits of ecumenical councils were never apparent immediately, it often took years, if not centuries for their work to be effecacious... problems with some of the early heresies are example of that, they didn't just die as soon as the councils condemned them. Only time will tell, but its always possible given prayer and faith in the holy Spirit to guide the Church that the disagreements with papal infallibility are not as deep as they seem. Thats only a person guess, and I try to be optomistic about the situation in light of the little reading I have done on it.

Peace

[theguidedheart]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

We deny Sola Scriptura. Our beliefs odn't have to be explicit in Scripure.



I can't remember the exact passages and i'm too tired to look them up, but there are verses where men are brought before the Apostles and hte Apostles lay hands on them. Again, the teaching may not be explicit, but we can certainly find evidence for it. In addition to the Scriptural evidence, there's also the fact that Apostolic Succession has been believed and practiced sinced the beginning of Christianity. You will especially see this if you ever read some of the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

There is also a lengthy letter from Paul where he gives very strict guidelines for electing bishops (presbyters or elders) to positions in the church, coupled with the fact that he also later tells Timothy to entrust all that he was taught to at least (in his example) 3 generations worth of trustworthy people.

The only thing that has changed in elections has been the form, but idea that positions should be filled has not changed.

Peace

[theguidedheart]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Yes, they laid hands on men being sent out to do other jobs, not taking over their job. It was a form of blessing apparently.

It comes in after a couple hundred years, but I don't see it in the early writings we have in scripture. Of course, the apostles passed on what they had been taught, that was the purpose Jesus had for them. It wasn't succession, but increase by passing on knowledge and teaching others to do the same.

That just goes against plainly documented writings early on the Church... when I am home and have more time I will look into them...

Peace

[theguidedheart]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I am being honest about the Catholic position. Look at the following:
If one cannot be saved, even if they shed blood in the name of Christ (baptism of blood) UNLESS they have persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church, then how could a Protestant be saved since obviously they have not been in unity with the Catholic church?

I am going to go out on a limb to give my understanding, but I am sure there are plenty of orthodox theologians who can do a much better job -

the key word here is PRESERVED.... if you are in unity with the Catholic Church, and leave it willingly (not being preserved), with the understanding that you are severing your communion with the body of Christ - even if you shed your blood, you will not be saved because you have already rejected the Church Jesus Christ gave you, a martyrs death would be in vain because it would be as a martyr in a false sense of true authentic Christian unity with Christ.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

I am going to go out on a limb to give my understanding, but I am sure there are plenty of orthodox theologians who can do a much better job -

the key word here is PRESERVED.... if you are in unity with the Catholic Church, and leave it willingly (not being preserved), with the understanding that you are severing your communion with the body of Christ - even if you shed your blood, you will not be saved because you have already rejected the Church Jesus Christ gave you, a martyrs death would be in vain because it would be as a martyr in a false sense of true authentic Christian unity with Christ.

It states first that the person dies for the name of Christ, then it says that this means nothing unless this person is in unity with the Catholic church. So how could this apply to any Protestant?

[theguidedheart]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

It states first that the person dies for the name of Christ, then it says that this means nothing unless this person is in unity with the Catholic church. So how could this apply to any Protestant?

Perseverence is still the key word in that... (and I apologize, preserved is what I said earlier, I misquoted). You skipped that part in your reply to me, and this makes all the difference...

it DOESNT say:

'even if you die in the name of Christ, unless you are in unity you will not be saved'

it DOES say (paraphrasing because of time..):

'even if you die in the name of Christ, you will not be saved unless you PERSEVERE in unity with the Catholic Church.'

Well... you have to be IN the Church first, to persevere. This is talking about people who already know the Catholic faith. You can't persevere in unity with the Catholic Church if you are not IN the Catholic Church, or are invincibly ignorant of...