legitimate development

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/[/url]

Why can't Eugene even be found here?

Now, some say this was all before the New World, so they considered everyone to have heard.


Now, I'm pretty sure Traditionalists are more strict in some sense. If it's not strict in the sense of catechumens, is it strict in the sense of the ignorant?

Someone mentioned this, the dude actually:
[quote]Before Colombus, St. Gregory of Nanzianzus is the only theologian who I can find making any sort of vague reference to the uneveangelized. After that, we have to wait until Pope Bl. Pius IX and Pope Pius XII. The only Church council to address the uneveangelized was Vatican II, and it spoke quite clearly in favor of the possibility of their salvation.[/quote]

What was it that St. Gregory said?

I would like more evidence from those times that I quoted whatever the case.

Edited January 2, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest JeffCR07]

Dairy, I already posted a ton of quotes above from people throughout history writing about the invincibly ignorant.

[dairygirl4u2c]

You need to show people's beliefs during the times showing in my threads. I realize it's possible to interpret those strict pope's appearing writings the way you do, and your evidence strengthens that possibility. But if you want to prove that those popes didn't teach strictly and contradict recent, you have to show people in those times had lenient views. Otherwise, all you have is specualation. Which I admit is all I have, but I could also aton a bunch of strict quotes and point out my traditionalist questions, and have just as much of a basis as you. of course i would think more, looking at how the writings were worded, but that's not enough to make a basis.

We both need more evidience one way or another from the times of the popes. Or explain to me why this is not the case and how you have proven and not just hown possible (which I think you've done) how those popes didn't contradict VII and other more recent popes.

I ask for that Saint Gregory is because I thought he was from around the time of those popes. upon closer inspection, he was from the 300's and so i was mistaken to ask for his ideas on the matter. surely this issue was addressed somewhere other than recent popes and then with greg.

Edited January 7, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

So do I have to go to the vatican or do research somewhere to find more info on this? Doesn't Cardinal Newman discuss the no salvation outside issue?

If there's anything keeping me from becoming Catholic again, it would be this issue mainly. There's also wanting to research where we have writings, where we don't, why we don't and how all that progressed, but this is second, and what is existant with the Catholic Church in writings is suffiencent as apolstolic, orthodox and thus "converging and convincing" arguments are concerned. There's also not accepting your rational regarding homosexual marriage and similar things, but the rationales I espouse are simply philosophical possibilites I happen to accept. If I had a good source of saying something was objectively true or not such as the CC, I could see changing my philosophical views. So in essense, this one issue is a major stumbling point for me as one examing the validity of the CC.

[dairygirl4u2c]

bump

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jan 21 2006, 03:03 PM'] So in essense, this one issue is a major stumbling point for me as one examing the validity of the CC.
[right][snapback]862817[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What would qualify one Church to be valid, and why do you see the CC as not being valid?

[dairygirl4u2c]

A valid church to me would be one that I put faith in that has converging and convincing arguments, as Newman put it. Now, if there are legitimate arguements that need more research when more research is possible, then that's what is needed for me to take a leap of faith. More writings surely exist to lean the argument one way or another surely exist.

Incidentally, one thing I don't like about this board. People say things like... if the CC is wrong, Christ lied etc. That shows a profound faith, but I also think it's dangerous thinking. What the people should think is.. if the CC is wrong, I have been given inadequate information etc. That's the way faith and reason should go together the way God intended. Maybe I'm missing something...

Now, if someone knows anyone who can help me in my research, that'd be greatly appreciated.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Well, I must admit to this I found by Augustine:
[quote]St. Augustine (354-430), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: "No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church."[/quote]

This means that he too had a strict way of speaking, much like the middle age popes. Compare this with what Jeff posted, and it's possible to have a strict appearing but actually not per se as the position of those here espouse for the middle age popes.

The irony being, I found that quote at a Traditionalist website...
(which helps somewhat strengthen my arguement, but not really in a sense)
[url="http://olrl.org/doctrine/eens2.shtml"]http://olrl.org/doctrine/eens2.shtml[/url]

sigh..
More research needs done.. to determine if possible that Augustine wasn't just referring to catecumens with his leniency and more on those middle agers..
but I admit my arguments are cracking..

Edited February 3, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

**"When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body…. All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:28 [39]).**

Well, there is that as for the ignorant that I hadn't considered that Jeff posted. I guess it shouldn't matter when it was taught by him as I sort of told myself; the fact is he believed that and the strict one. So I shouldn't be researching Augustine anymore...
my argument begins crackin more..

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hey Dairy, I hope you're doing well!

I haven't posted here in a while because after my admittedly long list of quotes, I thought it would be a good idea to let people do research on their own. Truth be told, I still think this is the wisest course of action, however, I feel motivated to make one point that I feel is crucial.

It seems to me that if one is making the [i]a priori[/i] assumption that the small number of middle ages popes in question had a rigorist interpretation, then one is forced to try to reconcile that with all of the non-rigorist views of the Saints and Doctors who came before and after them. One is forced to try to rationalize away particular theological teachings made by Augustine, Ireneaus, Pius XII, and others.

However, one does not have any problem whatsoever if he/she chooses simply to interpret the quotes of the middle ages popes as being in conformity with the views of the Saints/Doctors who lived and taught prior to them and after them. If that is done, the intellectual stress is much, much less.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff