Can the Church change its teaching?

[una_fides]

These are additional requirements to attain salvation which didn’t exist in the beginning. They make it harder for believers in Jesus Christ to get to heaven. They form unnecessary road blocks, divisions and exclusions. As time goes by more and more is added making it nearly impossible for anyone to learn all of them before we are even able to comply with them.

Actually I think they make it easier. You see one needs to be obedient to God and to the authority he has placed over us in order to get to heaven. By being rebellious against God and his Church we are not on the pathway there. Without rules, man grows lax. The rules such as mandatory fast days, etc, are designed so that we can and will be saved. If the Church did not make such rules, then many less people would fast and would not gain the benefits therefrom. Furthermore, by fasting with the right attitude of humility and submission to God and the authority he has established, one is able to see the spiritual benefits and can be prompted on further. One should not merely stay at the minimum rules anyway. God wants all of us. Ultimately, the root of complaining about rules stems from pride and a disdain for authority. God is our authority, and He has placed those above us who give us rules to obey for our own spiritual good.

Tell me this, if one never fasts is he in a better condition than another who humbly submits to the authority of the Church to fast on the days prescribed? Who is more likely endure to the end to be saved?

 

[una_fides]

Help me out here. I believe there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ because He is the one who openned the gate of Heaven and reconciled man to God. However, can I also believe that there are those who are saved through Jesus Christ although they are ignorant of Him? Further, can I believe that some who do know Jesus Christ are also saved even though they are not members of the CC because they do not see the CC as the living Jesus? [It is my understanding that the CC teaches that the answer to my 2 questions is “yes”.]

As an aside, there are many instances in the new testament in which statements are made detailing how to earn salvation. It seems that posters here rather choose to quote from Popes and councils on the topic of what is necessary for salvation and skip what is in the New Testament. Seems like this approach is only half right.

Scripture never teaches that one can earn his salvation apart from Jesus Christ and faith in Him. To teach that one can earn salvation apart from Christ is heresy. Here are some Scriptures on the subject of no salvation outside the Church to also keep in mind:

Jesus said the follow to his apostles and by extension their successors, “He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.” Luke 10:16

“He who believes in him [Jesus] is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” John 3:18

Notice also the Scriptures quoted in the following papal declarations:

Pope Boniface VIII. Unam Sanctam – 18 November 1302
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess *with simplicity *that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,’ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God 1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed. papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 15 August 1832:
“Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”(Ephesians 4,5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,” (Luke 11,23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.” (Symbol of Saint Athanasius) (…) This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say (Epistle 166)”
ewtn.com/library/encyc/g16mirar.htm

Here we have not Scripture alone but also its correct interpretation and application given by the Church.

 

[una_fides]

It seems to me that there are excerpts from the New Testament that deal with what is necessary for salvation and these excerpts do not include being a member of the Church. Rather these excerpts detail actions and dispositions that are necessary for Salvation. I could see someone arguing that a person could not persevere in having the dipostions and performing the actions unless they were strengthened by the graces available through the CC, but still, if the person is able to fulfill the requirements contained in scripture and still remain outside the visible, formal CC I would be hesitant to judge them as being lost. How do you reconcile the hard line you are taking on these Catholic pronouncements when compared to Sacred Scripture?

We cannot read the NT in a vacuum or interpret some verses independent of the rest. If in one place of Scripture it says that works are required for salvation (James 2) but in another it says faith (John 3) then both are required and both statements are true. Likewise, if some verses say works are necessary and others baptism and others faith in Christ and others that one must be submissive to the Church, then all are true. Works alone cannot save anyone. To believe that man is saved by works alone is heresy as defined in the Council of Trent.

Furthermore, no one can meet the requirements in Scripture without falling into sin. Man is born into sin and inherits a sinful and fallen nature from Adam. What is the only remedy for this sin that we know of for anyone to be saved? Baptism. And once one is baptized and has reached the age of reason he will almost inevitably fall into mortal sin because of his fallen human nature that inclines him to do so. How then can he obtain forgiveness of mortal sins? The sacrament of confession, or perfect contrition with a desire to go to confession asap. How can one reach perfect contrition and perfect charity? Only through supernatural faith and through God’s grace. You see by works alone no man is justified.

You cannot read and interpret Scripture apart from the Church fathers and from the Magisterium. When you do so, you only find what you want to find. We must be humble and submit to what has been revealed through Holy Mother Church and be loyal to her received tradition.

 

[whatischarity]

We cannot read the NT in a vacuum or interpret some verses independent of the rest. If in one place of Scripture it says that works are required for salvation (James 2) but in another it says faith (John 3) then both are required and both statements are true. Likewise, if some verses say works are necessary and others baptism and others faith in Christ and others that one must be submissive to the Church, then all are true. Works alone cannot save anyone. To believe that man is saved by works alone is heresy as defined in the Council of Trent.

Furthermore, no one can meet the requirements in Scripture without falling into sin. Man is born into sin and inherits a sinful and fallen nature from Adam. What is the only remedy for this sin that we know of for anyone to be saved? Baptism. And once one is baptized and has reached the age of reason he will almost inevitably fall into mortal sin because of his fallen human nature that inclines him to do so. How then can he obtain forgiveness of mortal sins? The sacrament of confession, or perfect contrition with a desire to go to confession asap. How can one reach perfect contrition and perfect charity? Only through supernatural faith and through God’s grace. You see by works alone no man is justified.

You cannot read and interpret Scripture apart from the Church fathers and from the Magisterium. When you do so, you only find what you want to find. We must be humble and submit to what has been revealed through Holy Mother Church and be loyal to her received tradition.

Am I mistaken or do you not approve of some of the more recent clarifications on the topic of savation and membership in the Church made by the teaching magisterium of the church? I am not trying to offend but I am just saying I find more recent pronouncements clarify some of these details more clearly.

 

[whatischarity]

Pope Pius IX, Allocution, Singular quadem. Dec. 9, 1854:
For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation**; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood** catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma17.php

Here is a little more of this Allocution catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma17.php:

1646 Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ [see n. 1717]. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition after death of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and “judgments of God” which are 'a great deep" Ps. 35:7] and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive from the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with that skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.

1647 For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains “we shall see God as He is” 1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is “one God, one faith, one baptism” Eph. 4:5 ]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.

The Pope does state we cannot presume on the limits of divine mercy. So although it must be agreed that all religions are not equal, if an individual is invincibly ignorant than they are guilt free. So the Pope himself is giving an example of someone who could find salvation in the ark but be outside the ark. It seems to me the Pope is attacking indifferentism but he is also warning individuals not to take this too far since it is also certain that those who are invicivlby ignorant are not guilty of being outside the church. It seems to me the last sentence ‘It is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry’ is a warning against being overzealous in interpreting “Outside the Church there is no Salvation”.

 

[yablabo]

Is it possible for the church to change its teaching on something, or would that mean that it was previously in error? Or is it okay that it may have been in error, if it wasn’t an infallible teaching?

What’s coming to mind is that I have read the church used to teach that babies who died without being baptized could not be saved. Now, I understand that is not the teaching.

It is possible for the Church to correct error in teachings of Popes or Councils which are NOT bound upon us under the assent of faith. Which, of course, points to the fact that there is a level of teaching which can be found to be in error. It is never “okay” to be in error, but it is the nature of the fallen human to be inclined to err. This is what shows greater the glory of God in an infallible teaching, the fact that there can be no error in such a teaching since it is protected by God, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

I know this is outside the scope of your question, but you may find this interesting. The First Vatican Council (Chapter 3, On Faith) defines, regarding whether teachings which demand the assent of faith can be changed:

1. Consequently, the situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the Church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question. This being so, giving thanks to God the Father Who has made us worthy to share with the saints in light, let us not neglect so great a salvation, but looking unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our faith, let us hold the unshakeable confession of our hope.

It is easy to see from this teaching, which can never be revoked, reformed or in error, that there is no just cause for those who claim the name ‘Catholic’ to change this faith or call it into question.

(Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason)

1. Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God Who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and Who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.

1. God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

1. Therefore, We define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false.

…

1. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.

Further, from the continued teaching of the First Vatican Council, one notices that a previous understanding of a dogmatic/infallible teaching cannot contradict the present understanding. That is both against reason and against revealed truth; never can truth be in opposition to truth, just as God cannot deny Himself.

As far as whether the Church used to teach that babies who died without being baptized could not be saved and now teaches otherwise, I say that is an interesting topic. The Church seems to have taught both with authority, right? Well, as far as what is stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Baptism, that teaching would be bound upon us by religious assent. However, we have opposing teachings, namely from the Council of Florence, which are bound upon us under the assent of faith. Since there is an hierarchy of authority, the assent to the opposing teaching of higher authority (and who is an higher authority than God?) would have to be the assent to the true doctrine and show the teaching apparently bound by religious assent to be a false teaching (and therefore not binding at all since one cannot sanely, knowingly and willingly assent to error). It is also against the infallible teaching of the First Vatican Council to assent to such false teaching.

I hope this gives some insight and food for thought.

– Nicole

 

[surritter]

It is possible for the Church to correct error in teachings of Popes or Councils which are NOT bound upon us under the assent of faith. Which, of course, points to the fact that there is a level of teaching which can be found to be in error. It is never “okay” to be in error, but it is the nature of the fallen human to be inclined to err. This is what shows greater the glory of God in an infallible teaching, the fact that there can be no error in such a teaching since it is protected by God, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

I know this is outside the scope of your question, but you may find this interesting. The First Vatican Council (Chapter 3, On Faith) defines, regarding whether teachings which demand the assent of faith can be changed:

It is easy to see from this teaching, which can never be revoked, reformed or in error, that there is no just cause for those who claim the name ‘Catholic’ to change this faith or call it into question.

(Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason)

Further, from the continued teaching of the First Vatican Council, one notices that a previous understanding of a dogmatic/infallible teaching cannot contradict the present understanding. That is both against reason and against revealed truth; never can truth be in opposition to truth, just as God cannot deny Himself.

As far as whether the Church used to teach that babies who died without being baptized could not be saved and now teaches otherwise, I say that is an interesting topic. The Church seems to have taught both with authority, right? Well, as far as what is stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Baptism, that teaching would be bound upon us by religious assent. However, we have opposing teachings, namely from the Council of Florence, which are bound upon us under the assent of faith. Since there is an hierarchy of authority, the assent to the opposing teaching of higher authority (and who is an higher authority than God?) would have to be the assent to the true doctrine and show the teaching apparently bound by religious assent to be a false teaching (and therefore not binding at all since one cannot sanely, knowingly and willingly assent to error). It is also against the infallible teaching of the First Vatican Council to assent to such false teaching.

I hope this gives some insight and food for thought.

– Nicole

Nicole,
I was with you until the last paragraph about infants without baptism. I am only more confused now. You seem to say that it IS possible for the Church to teach error, yet because the supposedly contradictory statements are at different “levels,” we must now go with the higher level.

I don’t think this is a sound argument. First, did the Council of Florence explicitly teach that those who die without water baptism are definitely excluded from heaven? Perhaps you are thinking of the notion that those who die in actual mortal sin or in original sin are excluded from heaven. That is true, but that is NOT the same as saying that babies who die without baptism must automatically be in a state of original sin. We do not know for sure – but isn’t it possible for God to extend to these babies the grace necessary to wipe away original sin in a manner that is outside of the normative sacrament as we know it?

Second, I have never heard about the two levels – one of “religious assent” and one of “assent of faith.” This seems to me to be a false framework in order to construct a work-around to what you perceive as a clear contradiction. Wouldn’t it be better to step back, look at the items that seem contradictory, and consider an interpretation of both that might be faithful to the words, yet bringing them in harmony?

Yes, there are different levels of Church teaching, and not every document put out by the Church has the no-error guarantee. But at the level of a Council’s teaching on baptism I don’t think we can find the statement of the Council of Florence “to be a false teaching.”

 

[sidbrown]

First, did the Council of Florence explicitly teach that those who die without water baptism are definitely excluded from heaven?

It looks like this teaching has been changed, since Cardinal Kasper has said that the Old Covenant is salvific for the Jews.

 

[sidbrown]

Scripture never teaches that one can earn his salvation apart from Jesus Christ and faith in Him. To teach that one can earn salvation apart from Christ is heresy. .

Jews reject Jesus. And still, Cardinal Kapser says that they can be saved through the Old Covenaant.

 

[sidbrown]

I’m curious… where did you find this information? A book or online?

There are many sources for the Synod of Gangra. For one example: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900.

 

[surritter]

Jews reject Jesus. And still, Cardinal Kapser says that they can be saved through the Old Covenaant.

So are you asserting that Cardinal Kasper is making a definitive pronouncement about formal Church teaching?

I would be glad to show why your view about that statement is not correct, but I first need to know if you are familiar with the proper vehicles or mouthpieces for determining formal Church teaching.

 

[whatischarity]

Scripture never teaches that one can earn his salvation apart from Jesus Christ and faith in Him. To teach that one can earn salvation apart from Christ is heresy. Here are some Scriptures on the subject of no salvation outside the Church to also keep in mind:

Jesus said the follow to his apostles and by extension their successors, “He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.” Luke 10:16

“He who believes in him [Jesus] is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” John 3:18
…

Here we have not Scripture alone but also its correct interpretation and application given by the Church.

What about those who believe in Jesus but do not recognize that the Roman Catholic Church is the one Church of Jesus Christ because of how they were raised - say in a Protestant religion? Can’t those people be accepted as baptized Christians and acheive salvation through the Roman Catholic Church even though they are not formally in the ark? It seems to me that this reasoning is in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church and it does reconcile both of the above scriptual quotes since the Protestant does believe in Jesus and he doesn’t despise the true Church but rather unfortunately doesn’t realize what he is missing perhaps due to scandal or misinformation. Seems to me we can’t declare such a one hellbound but rather they too could be unknowingly united to Jesus the only way possible: through the Church.

 

[una_fides]

Here is a little more of this Allocution catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma17.php:

The Pope does state we cannot presume on the limits of divine mercy. So although it must be agreed that all religions are not equal, if an individual is invincibly ignorant than they are guilt free. So the Pope himself is giving an example of someone who could find salvation in the ark but be outside the ark. It seems to me the Pope is attacking indifferentism but he is also warning individuals not to take this too far since it is also certain that those who are invicivlby ignorant are not guilty of being outside the church. It seems to me the last sentence ‘It is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry’ is a warning against being overzealous in interpreting “Outside the Church there is no Salvation”.

Actually if an individual is invincibly ignorant he is only free of guilt concerning the specific matter of which he has such ignorance. He may not be guilty for not externally becoming a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but he inevitably will be guilty of other sins against the natural law written on the hearts of every man so that every one is without excuse, as St. Paul so rightly explains in Romans 1.

I actually find the pope’s last line as more of a warning against the liberals who proceed into further inquiry as to trying to turn this dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus into a meaningless formula. The Church always had always warned against minimizing this dogma but had never warned about stating too explicitly that those not living inside the ark cannot be saved and never has the Church explicitly said that those who follow false religions can be saved in their false religions.

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, Encyclical Letter Concerning Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine, August 12, 1950:
27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[11] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the True Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith. 28. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error. newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12hg.htm

 

[una_fides]

Am I mistaken or do you not approve of some of the more recent clarifications on the topic of savation and membership in the Church made by the teaching magisterium of the church? I am not trying to offend but I am just saying I find more recent pronouncements clarify some of these details more clearly.

I think recent pronouncements employ vague wording which many people use to reduce this dogma to a meaningless formula. While the wording itself–when interpreted in light of what has always been taught–can be reconciled and can be understood correctly, it also causes many to easily get the wrong impression that anyone who follows some malformed conscience to some degree of good will outside the Church will still be saved, which is a ridiculous idea and contrary to what the Church has always taught on this matter. It is essential to understanding NSOC to also understand Christ’s explicit teaching that among all souls in the word many are called but only few are chosen.

 

[una_fides]

It looks like this teaching has been changed, since Cardinal Kasper has said that the Old Covenant is salvific for the Jews.

Did you ever consider the possibility that he could be a heretic? The teaching of any individual cardinal does not constitute the teaching of the Church.

 

[sidbrown]

Did you ever consider the possibility that he could be a heretic? The teaching of any individual cardinal does not constitute the teaching of the Church.

I considered the possiblity that some of the people on this thread do not know what they are talking about. Cardinal Kasper taught dogmatic theology at the Westphalian University of Münster (1964-1970), rising to become dean of the theological faculty in 1969, and then the same in Tübingen in 1970. In 1983, he taught as a visiting professor at The Catholic University of America.On 16 March 1999, Cardinal Kasper was appointed President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. He is also a member of the International Theological Commission, an advisory body to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. He was a cardinal elector in the 2005 papal conclave. He has repeatedly led official delegations of the Vatican on the annual visit to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople, on the occasion of the Patronal Feast of Saint Andrew. In August 2007, he was the head of the Roman Catholic delegation that participated at the funeral ceremony of the Patriarch of the Romanian Christian Orthodox Church, Teoctist.
It is obvious from the credentials and experience of Cardinal Kasper, that he acts with the full and complete blessing of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
Has the Pope ever said that Cardinal Kapser was a heretic, or is this fallacious claim just an opinion of an anonymous blogger with no official credentials in the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[una_fides]

What about those who believe in Jesus but do not recognize that the Roman Catholic Church is the one Church of Jesus Christ because of how they were raised - say in a Protestant religion? Can’t those people be accepted as baptized Christians and acheive salvation through the Roman Catholic Church even though they are not formally in the ark? It seems to me that this reasoning is in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church and it does reconcile both of the above scriptual quotes since the Protestant does believe in Jesus and he doesn’t despise the true Church but rather unfortunately doesn’t realize what he is missing perhaps due to scandal or misinformation. Seems to me we can’t declare such a one hellbound but rather they too could be unknowingly united to Jesus the only way possible: through the Church.

Great questions. The Church has actually given an answer. They could possibly be saved (in the Church though not a visible member); however, for any validly baptized protestant after he has reached the age of reason, it would be extremely difficult to attain eternal salvation.

**Baltimore Catechism

• 1. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?**

  A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.   Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.

In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.
Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never – even in the past – had the slightest doubt of that fact – what will become of him?
If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister – not being a true priest – has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition – that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic – with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts – might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.
I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.
**I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter. **
I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church. cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bcreed09.htm

 

[una_fides]

By the way, I’m pulling all these quotes from the following site that has an extensive compilation in case anyone is interested.
no-salvation-outside-the-church.blogspot.com/

 

[yablabo]

Nicole,
I was with you until the last paragraph about infants without baptism. I am only more confused now. You seem to say that it IS possible for the Church to teach error, yet because the supposedly contradictory statements are at different “levels,” we must now go with the higher level.

I am saying it is possible (and not only possible, but has, in fact, been done) for the Church in Her human element to teach error, not seemingly saying so.

It is a first intellective principle that one accepts (or rejects and makes one’s self insane) that a contradiction cannot exist. Therefore, it is based on natural reasoning to conclude that if a proposition contradicts itself, historical fact, physically observable reality or an higher authority, that proposition is not true. We know by the highest authority, also, that this is true (the First Vatican Council, as I posted previously); truth can never be in opposition to truth, just as God cannot deny Himself.

I don’t think this is a sound argument. First, did the Council of Florence explicitly teach that those who die without water baptism are definitely excluded from heaven? Perhaps you are thinking of the notion that those who die in actual mortal sin or in original sin are excluded from heaven. That is true, but that is NOT the same as saying that babies who die without baptism must automatically be in a state of original sin. We do not know for sure – but isn’t it possible for God to extend to these babies the grace necessary to wipe away original sin in a manner that is outside of the normative sacrament as we know it?

Yes, the Council of Florence explicitly teaches that those who die without what you call “water baptism” (and what I call the sacrament of Baptism, remember the Creed, “I confess ONE Baptism…” and Scripture, “one Lord, one faith, ONE Baptism”) are definitely excluded from heaven.

Bull of Union with the Armenians

Holy Baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the Church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But we do not deny that true Baptism is conferred by the following words: May this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; or, This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Trinity is the principle cause from which Baptism has its power and the minister is the instrumental cause who exteriorly bestows the sacrament, the sacrament is conferred if the action is performed by the minister with the invocation of the Holy Trinity. The minister of this sacrament is a priest, who is empowered to baptize in virtue of his office. But in case of necessity not only a priest or a deacon, but even a lay man or a woman, even a pagan and a heretic, can baptize provided he or she uses the form of the Church and intends to do what the Church does. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all Original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.

It is plain to see that the Council states that Christ, Who is the Truth, makes it evident that “unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot…enter the kingdom of heaven.” How much more explicit can that be?

– Continued Below –

 

[yablabo]

– Continued From Above –

God can neither deceive nor be deceived; we know this teaching is infallible and part of the definition of the supernatural virtue of faith in the First Vatican Council (On Faith (#2)). That means that if God tells us that “unless we are born again of water and the Spirit,” which the Church has understood to be the sacrament of Baptism, “we cannot…enter the kingdom of heaven,” then it is an absolute statement (from the time of the promulgation of the Gospels). It means that we can all know with perfect certitude that anyone who dies unbaptized does not ever go to heaven. It means that there is no other way of salvation than first entering through the “gate of the spiritual life,” which is the sacrament of Baptism.

Also, your statements on Original Sin seem to be contrary. You seem to be saying at one point that babies do not have Original Sin only to be saying next that they do. Correct me if I am wrong.

The Council of Trent can settle this both easily and quickly for us, though, as to whether babies contract Original Sin or not.

The Fifth Session of the Council of Trent.
Decree Concerning Original Sin.

1. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam, - which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, - is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath reconciled us to God in His own Blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of Baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God, behold Him Who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

This infallible teaching of Trent shows one that the Original Sin “transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own.” This allows one perfect certitude that each human being who descends from Adam (excluding the Immaculate Conception, of course) has the Original Sin as his own. It also shows that merely to say that “the powers of human nature” or “any other remedy than the merit of the one Mediator” can take away this Original sin, makes one anathema. It also tells us that one cannot deny how the “said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants,” (i.e., “by the sacrament of Baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church”) without making one’s self anathema. This is a certain teaching which can be neither revoked, reformed nor in error.

So, only if God can deceive can there be some possibility, as you say, “for God to extend to these babies the grace necessary to wipe away original sin in a manner that is outside of the normative sacrament as we know it.” Since it is taught infallibly in the First Vatican Council that God cannot deceive, then there is no possibility.

– Continued Below –