Perhaps I am mistaken, but off the top of my head, I can’t think of anything about the Roman Catholic Church that Tomndebb has posted that has been his own opinion or belief. I associate Tom’s posts with being the sort of information that could be acquired in General Questions if posed correctly. Can you give an example of something in which you think he was “an apologetic” for the Catholic Church?
For the record, I am a Protestant.
Shut up, tard.
Sometimes when a person sound rational, it’s because he is being rational.
My “DSeid’s Law” stands on its merits.
(Doing taxes gives me a headache mainly because I am still what a good middle school teacher would refer to as someone who has emerging orginizational skills. Problem is that the never emerged. Hate having to figure out cost basis for stocks sold which I bought many years ago and have had dividends reinvested.)
Having skimmed more of the thread now I can understand what you are frustrated over (Rubystreak’s explanation helps) but I still think that the problem lies in your difficulty in articulating the POV, rather than in Tom’s focussed and cited correction of fact.
Perhaps the proper response to Tom’s correction of what you were taught would be to clarify that your issue may not be with what is official church stand but with how, in your and others experience, the church stands are commonly presented within the institution.
Then the questions become:
[ul]
[li]Are these actually presented pervasively as Church teachings by Church representatives, or is your family’s experience unusual?[/li][li]If your family’s experience is commonplace, then do those teaching functionally become the beliefs of the institution in America despite the fact that it conflicts with official stands?[/li][li]Is there a significance to the fact that teaching such misperceptions is so tolerated by authorities, if it is?[/li][li]If these positions are not Church positions but are commonly taught as if they are, then how (or should) Church powerbrokers remedy the causes of the perception?[/li][/ul]
Without that framing others are left with you claiming that that the Church believes one thing and Tom claiming something else. Tom provides a cite. You say that this is what you and your family was taught. Who is the uniformed reader going to believe, the cite provided by someone with a long history of providing reliable information, or the personal experience claim?
With that framing the debate can move on productively.
Who is this Tomndeb that Valteron keeps going on about? I know there’s a moderator here called tomndebb, but apparently that’s not him.
It must be his evil twin.
His rational twin.
Wow what a crock. I am sure a reasoned response from Tom would say that centuries of child molesting were not official doctrine. I do suspect that many thousands of buggered children can see that. They suffered horribly. Lives were changed and coverups and payoffs ensued. Where is the reality. In the stance of the church which of course would never officially admit anything or in destroyed lives of helpless kids.
When I describe what I was taught in the church ,it corroborates Valterons. I ask friends and make calls to see if they were taught the same. To imply that our experience was just one or two people is ridiculous. Everybody from generation that I have talked to have shared my teaching. Was it official doctrine. I do not care . It was being taught and someone is responsible.
Oh, his rational-sounding twin. Thanks.
The church covered up. I m sure we all can accept that. How high did it go. I am sure the Vatican was aware and probably involved. If you can not see that you need clearer lenses. I would be amazed if the Vatican was not involved. Therefore covering up is church policy. Paying off and wielding political power was church policy. They were immersed in the whole sordid long term affair.That is the church. I expected much more from an organization that pretends to have the welfare of the people as part of it’s prime directive.
What is irrational about logic and truth.
It’s official RCC doctrine to bugger little boys in the asshole and cover it up because you would be surprised if it wasn’t true?
How’s that work again?
I will have you know that I was not buggered by any priest in my years at Catholic school. As a small child I was physically assaulted by nuns in a manner that would lead to lawsuits today, and in high school I was sexually molested by a Catholic priest in the form of oral sex. But never up the ass. Shucks 
By the way, although the priest who did that to me seemed old at the time, I now realize he was probably only late twenties to my 14 or 15. This would make him about early seventies now, and I have heard he is still alive and in our area.
Do you think I should confront him? Remember, I have zero proof of this.Would it accomplish anything. I guess when you have no evidence, legal prosecution is out of the question.
What is the statute of limitations in your Province? If that has expired for that crime, you are probably SOL for prosecution.
How much do civil suits require for (general) verdicts in your Province? If you are going to fail to win your case (and open yourself to countersuits), it is probably not worth the effort. If you think that the discovery portion of a suit might turn up additional evidence that may make the suit winnable, then that is your choice.
How much good would it do your spirit to confront him? If it is worth it to you, that is your choice.
Does he still have access through the church to adolescent males? Then you should definitely make your story known to his superiors. I have no idea whether they will act or whether anything will come of it, (if he is sufficiently old and decrepit, he may no longer have any ephebophilic desires or he may no longer be able to attract boys on whom to prey), but if you can prevent him from harming another child, you should act on that.
Not that it matters, because you’re getting pretty well rogered in this thread.
Your quote from the Cathecism does indeed seem to indicate that the RCC does not feel that everyone outside the RCC is deprived of salvation.
For ease of reference I have reproduced it here:
“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.”
I am curious as to how long that has been official RCC doctrine? Was it doctrine in the days of Martin Luther and Jean Calvin?
The Huguenots of France, or the Lutherans, must for the most part, in the early days of the Reformation, perforce have originally been baptized Roman Catholics. But they left the Catholic Church. Would they therefore count as those “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.” (thereby placing themselves among those who cannot be saved)?
Now I realize that it is probably unfair to ask you to read into the hearts of persons who have been dead for centuries to see how sincere they were. But let us suppose for the sake of argument that Martin Luther, a former RCC Priest, and his wife Katrina von Bora, a former nun, seriously had ceased to believe that “the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ”. Do you see them as conceivably saved under RCC doctrine?
If this doctrine of the RCC Church existed at the time of Luther, what was the point of excommunicating him and declaring his teachings heretical? Surely all those ex-Catholics who followed him into Lutheranism, or the French ex-Catholics who followed Calvin into Calvinism, if they sincerely did NOT believe that “the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ” were just as secure in salvation as their RCC counterparts, were they not?
So why did the RCC and the Pope of the era not say: “Bye, folks, send us a postcard and tell me if you find a good roofing contractor for your church! See you guys in Heaven.”
What was the point of acting againt heretics at all? After all, one of the main justifications for the Inquisition was that they were really saving the heretic from his own heresy which would damn his soul to Hell for all eternity. And of course, it was imperative that even if the heretic did not recant, he be put to death to prevent the spread of his heretical doctrine to others who would also be damning their souls to Hell.
But according to the doctrine posted above, none of this was necessary, unless the heretic was insincere, and knew “that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”
Since there is no way to prove or disprove a person’s inner sincereity in such matters, would the doctrine you quoted not have completely eliminated the need for the Inquisition?
So you agree with his opinion rather than mine. Booo hooo. That must mean I am really wrong and Tomndeb is really right. :dubious:
Your opinion and $3 will gt me a ride on the bus, man.
It is not even doctrine, now. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is a phrase that has been used and re-interpreted by different theologians over the years.
However, I am pretty sure that the current interpretation was not the one employed at the time of Luther. (Interestingly, Luther used almost the identical statement, himself, although, of course, he put a bit of a different interpretation on its meaning.)
Augustine of Hippo very likely used it in its most extreme sense. Others, not so much. What it has meant at any particular time probably had more to do with whatever controversy was catching anyone’s attention at the moment than any serious effort to declare theology. When the church felt it was being attacked or undermined in its authority, the speaker probably meant it in the sense of bowing to the wishes of the pope without even considering people who lived in distant lands who could nevcer have heard the Gospel. At other times it probably meant something different.
I made no claim that it has never been exclusive or restrictive. You brought it up as an example of how the church operates and I pointed out that it is not how the church operates, now (regardless how it behaved in the past).
What is Tom’s “opinion,” exactly? Because I haven’t really seen him offer one, so I am interested to know what you think it is.
Tom, while Gonzo seems to be reading and responding to something other than what I posted, I am curious as to what your take on my list of questions is. (Post #264). Would you kindly take a stab at answering the list? This is an area in which my ignorance is substantial and begs reduction. If a teaching is commonplace despite its not being official dogma, does it become a functional Church position nevertheless? If such does occur then why do Church authorities look the other way and what should their responsibilities be?
Thank you.
Seems to me this would make a damn fine Great Debates thread. Doesn’t need to be limited to Catholicism, either.