Well, then we are back to the question of how a Jew or Muslim or Buddhist can be saved, becasue he does not beileve in any way the Catholic religion.“Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922), Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
You are talking about two different laws and two different covenants.
If we must accept all the Church teaches to be saved then we are back to question "What are the infallible teachings that all Catholics are required to accept?"Not really. When we make salvation dependent upon following man made rules then we are creating a new old covenant instead of staying with the new covenant.
The gospel:If there was consensus, then you would be able to argue your point. But what exactly do they all agree upon?
Yes, the Church does not define what happens. All we can do is hope that God will be merciful. We know that. Since Baptism is the only possible salvic matter for a child, why would it not be the practice to Baptise them at birth rather than even waiting short time? Especially since we don’t know what happens to the unbaptised? Why not be sure rather than take a chance? In my area, there are not even baptisms offerred during Lent!! What about that infant who dies unexpectedly of SIDS? I guess we don’t know for sure but they might be out of luck.<<< At the end of the world, there will only be Heaven or Hell. This does not leave room for “Limbo”. So, it appears the unbaptized will reside either in Heaven or Hell. If it’s Hell, by definition, there is a complete lack of God and therefore no bliss, joy, contentment or anything else good. If it’s Heaven, then the unbaptized person would have been allowed into Heaven anyway. >>>>
There is a Particular Judgement and a General Judgement. We know that at the General Judgement - that Our Lord will judge the living and the dead. We also know that Jesus is a just judge that willl take into consideration everything and will judge accordingly. We know that no one will be in Hell who doenst deserve to be there and we know that everyone in Heaven will be there by the mercy of GOD. According to the Scriptures - when in St Mark it directs the Apostles to teach all nations and those who believe and are baptised will be saved and those who do not believe will be condemned. Why does it not say that those who are not baptised by the Apostles will be condemned? Because GOD saves who he will. There is Baptism of Blood and of Desire not to take the place of the Sacrament of Baptism but to augment it unto salvation. So when you say that a person isnt “baptised” and is allowed into heaven anyway that isnt entirely correct. For who is to know the mind of GOD? Certainly Jesus who knows all things can determine desire can he not? And desire has to come from the individual as does belief. Suffice to say - there is no definitive answer to this question save one. That Jesus is a just judge and the source of all good and thus the will of GOD will be done on judgement day and not a single person reading this has any room to complain about his decision in each and every one of these cases. So its still up to us to baptise our infants as soon as possible because we as catholics are not ignorant of the laws of Almighty GOD our eyes being opened by grace to it. And in charity - we must exhort our neighbor to do the will of GOD but failing that - we pray that GOD have mercy on those who are not Baptised Sacramentally by the Church.
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
- when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
- that is, when,
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#papal%20infallibility%20defined
- **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
- **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
- **he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **
- he possesses,
- by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
- that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
- Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
You don’t really know about all other churches and how God guides them.The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Only one GUIDED by the HOLY GHOST. No other church is.
Well, if they are guided by God, it is only through their invisible and imperfect attachment to the Catholic Church. Recall that the Catholic Church gathered and ratified the books of the Bible. Recall that the Church is the Bride of Christ, and Mary is the mediatrix of all graces. So any truths that Protestants have is still through the channels of the Catholic Church, whether they know it or not.You don’t really know about all other churches and how God guides them.
No one is denying that. If they are getting prayers answered, getting to know what pleases Him and what does not please Him just from studying a bible that was compiled by the Early Church Fathers, then they are doing all they know about God’s will without the full deposit of faith. I don’t believe Mary or the saints or Jesus will hold back anything from those who are seeking with a sincere heart and pure motives because they are not Catholic.Well, if they are guided by God, it is only through their invisible and imperfect attachment to the Catholic Church. Recall that the Catholic Church gathered and ratified the books of the Bible. Recall that the Church is the Bride of Christ, and Mary is the mediatrix of all graces. So any truths that Protestants have is still through the channels of the Catholic Church, whether they know it or not.
Yes, but in post #206 you had challenged the notion that God guides only the Catholic Church. That was the only reason for my explanation for how it’s true that only the Catholic Church is so guided.No one is denying that. If they are getting prayers answered, getting to know what pleases Him and what does not please Him just from studying a bible that was compiled by the Early Church Fathers, then they are doing all they know about God’s will without the full deposit of faith. I don’t believe Mary or the saints or Jesus will hold back anything from those who are seeking with a sincere heart and pure motives because they are not Catholic.
This is what I was responding to. The idea of the Catholic Church being the ONLY church being guided by the Holy Spirit. It reminds me of the Pharisees in Act 15.Yes, but in post #206 you had challenged the notion that God guides only the Catholic Church. That was the only reason for my explanation for how it’s true that only the Catholic Church is so guided.
Acts 15:5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.”The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Only one GUIDED by the HOLY GHOST. No other church is.
An individual who is outside the visible boundaries of the Church, but who is sincerely doing his best to follow God (and who does not reject the true Church) can be led by God, but a false church itself is never led by God (and by false church I mean any non-Catholic church). Regarding the sincere indivduals who are unfortunately attending a false church, but who are sincerely doing their best, if they follow God who is leading them, they will end up in the true Church. The fact that they attended a false church at one time (before becoming Catholic) was a mere accident along their path to the truth.No one is denying that. If they are getting prayers answered, getting to know what pleases Him and what does not please Him just from studying a bible that was compiled by the Early Church Fathers, then they are doing all they know about God’s will without the full deposit of faith. I don’t believe Mary or the saints or Jesus will hold back anything from those who are seeking with a sincere heart and pure motives because they are not Catholic.
=ron77nyc;If we must accept all the Church teaches to be saved then we are back to question "What are the infallible teachings that all Catholics are required to accept?"
Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum is a perfect example of a man-made law which was added as a requirement for attaining eternal life. It reminds me of the rabbis who interpreted and embellished the old covenant, adding law upon law, loading people down with heavy burdens that were impossible to carry.
Luke 11:46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them."
Friend, perhaps, if read carefully this will answer your question? From the 1984 Code of Canon Law52“ Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”
Many of them come from false Catholic churches. Not all Catholic churches are the same and the Church has not always taught the deposit of faith consistently.The teachings vary in different parts of the world at different times in history.but a false church itself is never led by God (and by false church I mean any non-Catholic church). Regarding the sincere indivduals who are unfortunately attending a false church, but who are sincerely doing their best, if they follow God who is leading them, they will end up in the true Church. The fact that they attended a false church at one time (before becoming Catholic) was a mere accident along their path to the truth.
I honestly don’t know where you get some of your information. There is only one Catholic Church – although it has different rites and of course thousands upon thousands of parishes. Are these distinctions at the parish level what you are referring to?Many of them come from false Catholic churches. Not all Catholic churches are the same and the Church has not always taught the deposit of faith consistently.The teachings vary in different parts of the world at different times in history.
The Church has always opposed religious freedom.Friend, perhaps, if read carefully this will answer your question? From the 1984 Code of Canon Law
Can. 747 §1 It is the obligation and inherent right of the Church, independent of any human authority, to preach the Gospel to all peoples, using for this purpose even its own means of social communication, for it is to the Church that Christ the Lord entrusted the deposit of faith, so that by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, it might conscientiously guard revealed truth, more intimately penetrate it, and faithfully proclaim and expound it. §2 The Church has the right always and everywhere to proclaim moral principles, even in respect of the social order, and to make judgements about any human matter in so far as this is required by fundamental human rights or the salvation of souls.
Can. 748 §1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it.
§2 It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace the catholic faith against their conscience.
Do you think the Catholic Church in Mexico or New Orleans 100 years ago was teaching the same stuff that Catholics in America know today about Catholicism. Let’s go back 100 years to Ireland or Brazil or speak to an Irishman or Brazilian age 60 or more and see if you can have a discussion about the deposit of faith or justification by faith. I can’t have those discussions with Catholics my age who were educated in New York City Catholic schools.I honestly don’t know where you get some of your information. There is only one Catholic Church – although it has different rites and of course thousands upon thousands of parishes. Are these distinctions at the parish level what you are referring to?
Where does any post Vatican II document explicitly state that a Muslim or Buddhist can be saved outside the Church? If they are saved, they are saved in the sole ark of salvation, which is the Catholic Church. The question is whether a Muslim or Buddhist or anyone else who is not a part of the visible Church is invincibly ignorant of the faith and not in any way guilty for not entering it. Such people–bear in mind–who meet such a qualification are not thereby saved through their ignorance because they still have other great sins on their souls that will need to be forgiven. If they are invincibly ignorant and have perfect charity for God, which entails perfect contrition for their sins they could be saved granted they also lead a good life and follow the dictates of their consciences without blame. This is a summary and compilation of the requirements for such people that the Church has defined in toto. For these very few souls, post Vatican II documents do not state that they will necessarily be saved in their ignorant state either. They simply state that they “can be saved.” We still do not know and cannot entirely rule out that for these very few souls, God could potentially send to them an angel, infuse them with some divine knowledge prior to death, or send them a missionary from which they would gladly and openly receive the truth and be saved in the Church through a conscious desire for baptism rather than as some speculate that they could be saved by a certain unconscious desire. Either way, they would be saved in the Church through their desire for baptism animated by perfect charity, for outside of the Church there is no salvation.Well, then we are back to the question of how a Jew or Muslim or Buddhist can be saved, becasue he does not beileve in any way the Catholic religion.
So do we not have to conclude that this preVatican II teaching has been changed?
Sounds to me like you have been exposed to some anti-Catholic propoganda, as these are their typical darts that they will throw. That papal encyclical is as man made as the compiling of the books of Scripture. Both were done by the authority of the Church. Why do you trust in the canon but do not trust the Church that compiled it, preserved it, and told the world that it was the Word of God?If we must accept all the Church teaches to be saved then we are back to question "What are the infallible teachings that all Catholics are required to accept?"
Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum is a perfect example of a man-made law which was added as a requirement for attaining eternal life. It reminds me of the rabbis who interpreted and embellished the old covenant, adding law upon law, loading people down with heavy burdens that were impossible to carry.
Luke 11:46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them."
52“ Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”