quote:

---

To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law--though I myself am not under the law--to win over those under the law.
To those outside the law I became like one outside the law--though I am not outside God's law but within the law of Christ--to win over those outside the law.
To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some.
All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it.(1 Corinthians 9:20-23)

---

quote:

---

I wont quote NOSTRA AETATE

---

quote:

---

[i]Originally posted by Patti[/i]
[br]
In light of Scripture, what the Holy Father said and did is no problem whatsover. St. Paul would praise him for it.

---

quote:

---

Please identify just what point are you trying to prove here, because I'm confused by your objection. The Pope said God is One God. He is absolutely correct. As it said in the Athanasian Creed: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.

---

quote:

---

I've known I hold a different Gospel than the Catholics but if Catholics affirm the god of the moslems and jews (who deny Christ who is God) we are as far apart as east from west.

---

quote:

---

65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty. 27

480 Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men.

667 Jesus Christ, having entered the sanctuary of heaven once and for all, intercedes constantly for us as the mediator who assures us of the permanent outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

771 "The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope, and charity, as a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men."184 The Church is at the same time:

- a "society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ;

- the visible society and the spiritual community;

- the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches."185

These dimensions together constitute "one complex reality which comes together from a human and a divine element":186

The Church is essentially both human and divine, visible but endowed with invisible realities, zealous in action and dedicated to contemplation, present in the world, but as a pilgrim, so constituted that in her the human is directed toward and subordinated to the divine, the visible to the invisible, action to contemplation, and this present world to that city yet to come, the object of our quest.187

O humility! O sublimity! Both tabernacle of cedar and sanctuary of God; earthly dwelling and celestial palace; house of clay and royal hall; body of death and temple of light; and at last both object of scorn to the proud and bride of Christ! She is black but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, for even if the labor and pain of her long exile may have discolored her, yet heaven's beauty has adorned her.188

---

quote:

---

"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."338

---

quote:

---

...if Catholics affirm the god of the ... jews

---

quote:

---

"Whoa, Tim, are you saying here that the God of the Old Testament is DIFFERENT from the God of the New Testament???" No.

---

quote:

---

To deny the God of the New Testament is to deny the God of the Old Testament and therefor worship a false god.

---

quote:

---

...the pope was laying the groundwork some two thousand years after Paul told it like it is?

---

quote:

---

...I like you think you are outside biblical teaching and as far as you cling to your own strength, merits and works and not that Christ has redeemed, justified, and saved us....

---

quote:

---

That straw man belongs in a cornfield, Tim. No Catholic believes that he is saved by his own anything. It is only by being united to Christ that we are saved. It is by His strength, His merit, His sacrifice that we are saved. All we can do by our good works is crown His gifts in us.

But make no mistake: Don't do good works as a Christian and you will be cut off. So says Matthew 25:31-46.

---

quote:

---

I did not say you were a full pelagian....

---

quote:

---

any salvific good that comes about is from God; all we men are capable of on our own is natural good, which does not save us. The grace needed for salvation finds it source and end in God.

---

quote:

---

Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred Synod wishes to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit above all of biblical and theological studies, and of brotherly dialogues.

---

quote:

---

Ever since God created the world his everlasting power and deity–however invisible–have been there for the mind to see in the things he has made. (Rom 1:20)

Sinners who were not subject to the Law will perish all the same, without that Law; sinners who were under the Law will have that Law to judge them. It is not listening to the Law but keeping it that will make people holy in the sight of God. For instance, pagans who never heard of the Law but are led by reason to do what the Law commands, may not actually ‘possess’ the Law, but they can be said to ‘be’ the Law. They can point to the substance of the Law engraved on their hearts–they can call a witness, that is, their own conscience–they have accusation and defense, that is, their own inner mental dialogue...on the day when, according to the Good news I preach, God, through Jesus Christ, judges the secrets of mankind. (Rom 2:13-16)

---

quote:

---

All knowledge of God, even natural knowledge, even in the pagan philosophers, cannot come except from God; and without grace knowledge produces nothing but presumption, vanity, and opposition to God Himself, instead of the affections of adoration, gratitude, and love.

As there is no sin without love of ourselves, so there is no good work without love of God.

---

quote:

---

They agree with Pelagius who understand the text of the Apostle to the Romans: ‘The nations, who do not have a law, do naturally the things, which are of the law’ [Rom 2:14], concerning the nations who do not possess the grace of faith.

That is not true obedience of the law, which is done without charity.

That distinction also by which a work is called good in two ways, either because it is right and good from its object and all its circumstances (which is usually called moral), or because it is meritorious of the eternal kingdom, in so far as it proceeds from a living member of Christ the Spirit of charity, must be rejected.

Just as an evil work by its nature is deserving of eternal death, so a good work by its own nature is meritorious of eternal life.

By the natural law it has been ordained for man that, if he would persevere in obedience, he would attain to that life, in which he could not die.

---

quote:

---

These good works which are done with prevenient grace, accompanying grace, and following grace do not merit eternal life without the gift of sanctity by which the just are joined with Christ as members with the head and are associated as sons of God by grace with the natural Son of God.

---

quote:

---

Further declarations on this matter defend the absolute gratuitousness of the original gift of grace, against the affirmations of the Jansenists. The ‘integritas primae creationis’ was an unmerited elevation of human nature (‘indebtia humane naturae exaltatio’) and not ‘the state due to him by nature’ (‘naturalis eius condicio’–DS 1926). God, therefore, could have created man without these graces and gifts (cf. DS 1955); that would not have shattered the essence of human nature and would not have deprived it of its fundamental privileges[...]The ‘freedom’ or ‘free will’ of the anti-Pelagian documents did not mean the possibility of choice, connected with human nature, and therefore constant, but referred only to the possibility of carrying out meritorious acts, the freedom that springs from grace and that man may lose[...]Because of sin, Adam lost what did not belong to human nature in the strict sense of the word, that is, integritas, sanctitas, innocentia, iustitia. Liberum arbitrium, free will, was not taken away, but became weaker.

“Theology of the Body,” General Audience, May 14, 1980

---

quote:

---

Why, thank you. Neither are Catholics semi-Pelagian. We recognize the need to cooperate with God's Will by our actions.

---

quote:

---

However, any salvific good that comes about is from God; all we men are capable of on our own is natural good, which does not save us. The grace needed for salvation finds it source and end in God.

---

quote:

---

Read Matthew 25:31-46 about the separation of the sheep and the goats. What saved the sheep? Cooperating with God's Will by doing acts of mercy. What condemned the goats? Not cooperating with God's Will by doing acts of mercy.

---

quote:

---

In the first case, cooperation with God is because of God; the good works are His that the sheep did for Him on this earth. In the second case, failure to cooperate with God is because of man. Doing good works in and of itself does not save; doing God's works in cooperation with His Will does. Failing to do good works will certainly condemn those who do not do them. This is in keeping with Luke 12:47-48.

---

quote:

---

That sounds like a semi-pelagian to me.

---

quote:

---

Are you suggesting I have the faculties to interpret this scripture outside the magisterium?

---

quote:

---

Is this from an infallible magisterium document?

---

quote:

---

the boundaries that mark off impermissible interpretations of Scripture are still known. The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes that Vatican II enumerated three criteria (CCC 111; cf. Dei Verbum 12), each of which has a long history in biblical interpretation.

The first of these was that "serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out" (DV 12). This means that no properly understood assertion of Scripture will ever contradict another. If it does so, it must be a false interpretation.

The second criteria was that "the living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account" when interpreting Scripture (ibid.). This states in a general way a limit that was more concretely expressed at Vatican I:

"In matters of faith and morals, affecting the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of holy Scripture which holy mother the Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of holy Scriptures. Therefore no one is allowed to interpret the same sacred Scripture contrary to this sense or contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers" (De Filius 2).

The "living tradition of the whole Church" referred to by Vatican II includes both of the items mentioned by Vatican II—the judgment of Church and that of the Fathers regarding the interpretation of Scripture. Both of these elements must not be violated when seeking to establish the meaning of Scripture.

In the first regard, the judgment of the Church’s magisterium must not be violated. As when evaluating ecclesiastical statements in general, the strength with which the Church’s judgment has been proposed must be taken into account. The highest form of Church approbation regarding the interpretation of a verse would be for the magisterium to infallibly define the sense of the verse—or a part of its sense. This has been done in a small number of cases.

As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent:

(1) The reference being "born of water and the Spirit" in John 3:5 does include the idea of baptism.

(2–3) In telling the apostles "Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me" in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.

(4–5) In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus did confer a power on the apostles to forgive sins, and not everyone shares this power.

(6) Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.

(7) The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained and not simply elder members of the Christian community.

In the second regard—that the judgment of the Church Fathers must not be violated—again the standard set for violation is rather narrow. Only when the Fathers speak with "unanimous consent" is their interpretation mandated. When they do not speak with unanimity—as is the case in the great majority of verses—then there is liberty of interpretation.

Finally, the third limiting criterion named by Vatican II was that the exegete must also take into account "the harmony which exists between elements of the faith" (DV 12), which the Catechism expresses by stating that the exegete must "be attentive to the analogy of faith. . . . [i.e.,] the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of revelation" (CCC 114). This means that Scripture cannot be interpreted in a way that contradicts what is theologically certain.

In addition to these definite boundaries to permissible biblical interpretations, there are also influences that should apply to the process of interpreting Scripture. If other books of Scripture probably—though not certainly—teach something, then that should influence the way a given book is read. If the magisterium leans toward but has not infallibly proposed a particular interpretation, that should have an influence. The same goes for the Church Fathers when they speak with something approaching but not yet at unanimity.

---

quote:

---

[i]Originally posted by artsippo[/i]
[br]Tim , you are not facing reality. It is your sect that has not kept the Catholic faith and you should be far more worried about your own unbiblical and heretical beliefs than about the standing of non-Christians.

---

quote:

---

I must also say that you are sticking your nose into matters that are far above your understanding. You want to burble on about inter-religious dialog when in fact you have no idea what the Gospel is about. You live outside the Church and under the condemnation of not only of the Athanasian Creed, but the Niceo-Constantinoplitan Creed, the Bull Unam Sanctam, and the anathemas of Trent.

---

quote:

---

The Jews are our separated brethren just as you are. And the Moslems in their way are as well. ALL OF YOU stand outside the Church and in danger of condemnation. Your heretical faith cannot save you just as the erroneous religions of Jews and Muslims cannot save them. The very condemnation you wish to throw at them condemns you. until you acknowledge this, you are not able to discuss deeper matters.

---

quote:

---

Why does your pope not speak with the clarity ... on the subject of salvation when the World is listening?

---

quote:

---

[i]Originally posted by artsippo[/i]
You live outside the Church and under the condemnation of not only of the Athanasian Creed, but the Niceo-Constantinoplitan Creed, the Bull Unam Sanctam, and the anathemas of Trent.

---

quote:

---

Because the penalty has been abolished, a word should be said about the status of the conciliar canons that employed this penalty. In addition to prescribing the imposition of a juridical penalty, the phrase anathema sit ("let him be anathema") also came to be one of the phrases that the Church traditionally has used to issue doctrinal definitions.

Catholic scholars have long recognized that when an ecumenical council applies this phrase to a doctrinal matter, then the matter is settled infallibly. (If a council applied the phrase to a disciplinary matter, then the matter would not be settled infallibly, since only matters of doctrine, not discipline, are subject to doctrinal definition.)

Thus, when Trent and other ecumenical councils employed anathema sit in regard to doctrinal matters, not only was a judicial penalty prescribed but a doctrinal definition was also made. Today, the judicial penalty may be gone, but the doctrinal definition remains. Everything that was infallibly decided by these councils is still infallibly settled.

This has consequences under current canon law. Those things that are both divinely revealed by God and proposed as such by the Church cannot be obdurately denied or doubted without the offense of heresy (CIC [1983] 751). Heresy does carry a penalty of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication (can. 1041, 2º), though this does not apply to those who have never been members of the Catholic Church (can. 11), and even then there is a significant list of exceptions (can. 1323).

Unfortunately, there is little likelihood that passionate anti-Catholics such as Gendron, White, and numerous others will get the facts straight, openly admit their error, and actively work to counteract the damage they have done by spreading so much misinformation on this subject. But one day it will all get straightened out—by God.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

To deny the God of the New Testament is to deny the God of the Old Testament and therefor worship a false god.

---

Not necessarily, if the Jews worship God as He's found in the same Old Testament Christians use. They are worshiping with an incomplete revelation and need to have the Gospel brought to them. When the Apostles preached the Gospel to the Jews, which Scriptures did they use? Did they start with the letters of Paul and Peter, or did they start with, for example, the prophets and the Psalms?

Patti

---

quote:

---

[i]Originally posted by Patti[/i]
[br]Seems like you forgot the rest of Akin's points:

quote:

---

Because the penalty has been abolished, a word should be said about the status of the conciliar canons that employed this penalty. In addition to prescribing the imposition of a juridical penalty, the phrase anathema sit ("let him be anathema") also came to be one of the phrases that the Church traditionally has used to issue doctrinal definitions.

Catholic scholars have long recognized that when an ecumenical council applies this phrase to a doctrinal matter, then the matter is settled infallibly. (If a council applied the phrase to a disciplinary matter, then the matter would not be settled infallibly, since only matters of doctrine, not discipline, are subject to doctrinal definition.)

Thus, when Trent and other ecumenical councils employed anathema sit in regard to doctrinal matters, not only was a judicial penalty prescribed but a doctrinal definition was also made. Today, the judicial penalty may be gone, but the doctrinal definition remains. Everything that was infallibly decided by these councils is still infallibly settled.

This has consequences under current canon law. Those things that are both divinely revealed by God and proposed as such by the Church cannot be obdurately denied or doubted without the offense of heresy (CIC [1983] 751). Heresy does carry a penalty of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication (can. 1041, 2º), though this does not apply to those who have never been members of the Catholic Church (can. 11), and even then there is a significant list of exceptions (can. 1323).

Unfortunately, there is little likelihood that passionate anti-Catholics such as Gendron, White, and numerous others will get the facts straight, openly admit their error, and actively work to counteract the damage they have done by spreading so much misinformation on this subject. But one day it will all get straightened out—by God.

---

Yours in Christ,

Patti

Laudare, benedicere, praedicare.

---

quote:

---

This has consequences under current canon law. Those things that are both divinely revealed by God and proposed as such by the Church cannot be obdurately denied or doubted without the offense of heresy (CIC [1983] 751). Heresy does carry a penalty of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication (can. 1041, 2º), though this does not apply to those who have never been members of the Catholic Church (can. 11), and even then there is a significant list of exceptions (can. 1323).

---

quote:

---

2000 years after Christ in Rome you say "They are worshiping with an incomplete revelation" Do they have no access to the Gospel have they not heard of Jesus" are not many who practice judaism in fact the descendants of Turkish-Slavic Khazars ,
"They are worshiping with an incomplete revelation " the Talmud and Kabbalah?

---

quote:

---

[i]Originally posted by Patti[/i]
[br][quote]
Were you Catholic at one time?

---

quote:

---

...in Rome you say "They are worshiping with an incomplete revelation" Do they have no access to the Gospel have they not heard of Jesus" are not many who practice judaism in fact the descendants of Turkish-Slavic Khazars ,
"They are worshiping with an incomplete revelation " the Talmud and Kabbalah?

---

quote:

---

So no I have never been a member of your church.

---