Do only Catholics have salvation?

[itsjustdave1988]

continued …

Furthermore, you claim that this bull was infallible. Certainly there are parts that are and parts that are not. For example, in the same Bull Pope Eugene declares the content of Sacred Scripture. Yet, the Catholic Church has never asserted that the canon of Scripture was definitively and infallibly proclaimed at Florence, but was done so at Trent. I believe you take an oversimplified understanding of what parts of Catholic doctrine are infallible and which parts are not. According to canon law, “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.” (canon 749 §3). I don’t see infallibility of that part of Pope Eugene’s bull to be any more “manifestly demonstrated” than the part where he discusses the books of Scripture. Consider this quote from the same bull, “it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.” Does this mean that the Church teaches infallibly that anyone circumcised cannot attain eternal life? I dont’ think so. Perhaps we ought to leave it to the magisterium to authentically interpret Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

I have a simple question for you: is your interpretation of this infallible dogma more trustworthy than all the popes beginning with Pope Pius IX? Or is the authentic interpretation of both Scripture and Tradition vested in the magisterium?

I am not trying to promote “feeneyism” or “no salvation outside the Church” as you want to imply that I should be excommunicated for and burn in hell for.

I implied no such thing. I simply pointed out that your narrow interpretation of who “belongs” to the Catholic Church has already been formally condemned by the Catholic Church. Either you accept that judgment or you reject it.

Here’s the decision of the Holy Office, approved by the pope, against Feeneyism:

**Letter from the Holy Office, approved by Pope Pius XII, against Feeneyism **ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.htm

 

[itsjustdave1988]

i don’t really know if we can say that the Church always believed that non-Catholics belong to the “soul” of the Church.

I’m not concerned with semantics. The concept is the essence of the teaching, and is in accord with early Church tradition.

St. Augustine: “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 [by baptism of desire]” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 5:28:39).

 

[Steven_Merten]

itsjustdave, Yes, Pope Eugene (and Pope Pius X) are correct. Formal heretics and schismatics who pour out their blood in the name of Christ are still formal heretics and schismatics, and as such die in a state of mortal sin. If they remain impenitent in formal grave sin, no matter their actions, they will not attain eternal life.
…

You point out that Pope Pius X papacy says, " The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood". Pope Eugene infallibly says, “no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abidewithin the bosom and*** unity*** of the Catholic Church.”

Hello Dave,

You intentionally left out pagans and Jews when you discuss those who pour out their blood for the Name of Christ are saved through “Baptism of Blood”. You only talk about “Formal heretics and schismatics”. Obviously heritics and schismatics are already baptized and would not need a “Baptism of Blood” but only the Jews and Pagans would need it.

Do you believe that Pope Eugene is clearly teaching us in his Bull that unbaptized Pagans and Jews who “pour out their blood for the Name of Christ” have salvation through Pope Pius X teaching on “baptism of blood”?

Are other readers seeing what Dave is trying to say?

“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can never be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; … no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and*** unity*** of the Catholic Church.”

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[itsjustdave1988]

oat soda,

Thanks. It appears you have your hands full attempting to explain how the Church understands this doctrine to non-Catholics on that other thread. Good luck.

 

[BlessedBe13]

Well, I’ve been baptized into the Catholic Church, and certainly not excommunicated, so what’s happening to me? And I certainly don’t reject many of the teachings of Jesus, for they still get a good message across.

Laura

P.S. If you noticed, I did say that the Bible was inspired by God. However, God did not take a pen and write it. Men did. And in the process, while much/most of what they had written may have been inspired by God, nothing would stop them from adding in their own bits and pieces, even saying it was inspired by god, to promote their religion, own beliefs, etc.

 

[RBushlow]

BlessedBe13:

P.S. If you noticed, I did say that the Bible was inspired by God. However, God did not take a pen and write it. Men did. And in the process, while much/most of what they had written may have been inspired by God, nothing would stop them from adding in their own bits and pieces, even saying it was inspired by god, to promote their religion, own beliefs, etc.

Ah, there’s the error. The Church teaches that the scriptures are inerrant. God would have, in fact, stopped them from introducing error in to the scripture.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Steven Merten:

You intentionally left out pagans and Jews when you discuss those who pour out their blood for the Name of Christ are saved through “Baptism of Blood”.

No. I specifically said “anyone” who remains impenitent in formal grave sin, Catholic or non-Catholic, no matter how they die, will not attain eternal life. Formal grave sins include heresy, schism, infidelity, apostacy, murder, adultery, etc., etc.

You only talk about “Formal heretics and schismatics”. Obviously heritics and schismatics are already baptized and would not need a “Baptism of Blood” but only the Jews and Pagans would need it.

If a heretic or schismatic commits this grave sin formally (with full advertence and full willfulness), then regardless of whether their prior sins were forgiven sacramentally or not, they no longer live in a state of grace. The are as damnable as a formal infidel or formal apostate. An act of perfect contrition is efficacious for salvific grace if one at least has an implicit desire to confess the sins they knowingly have committed. An act of perfect contrition is incompatible with impenitence in grave formal sin.

One cannot commit formal grave sin without full advertence and full willfulness. According to Pope St. Piux X:

“For a sin to be mortal three things are required: (1) Grave matter, (2) Full advertence, (3) Perfect consent of the will.” … The matter is grave when the thing under examination is seriously contrary to the laws of God and His Church. … Full advertence in sinning is had when we know perfectly well that we are doing a serious evil … Perfect consent of the will is verified in sinning when we deliberately determine to do a thing although we know that thing to be sinful." (Catechism of Pius X)

If anyone dies impenitently in mortal sin as it is described above, then they will not attain eternal life, whether they are Catholic nor non-Catholic, no matter how they die.

Keeping the above teaching about mortal sin in context, is it unreasonable to believe that a baptized Coptic Christian (material heresy) may not be acting with full advertence (formal heresy), and as such does not commit mortal sin?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Also, take the account of the pagan Roman centurion, Cornelius, of Acts 10. Remember that Cornelius was neither Christian nor Jew yet was described as “devout and God-fearing.” An angel appeared to this pagan and said, “Your prayers and almsgiving have ascended as a memorial offering before God.” Imagine that! Does it not appear that this man’s prayers and acts of charity were acceptable to God even before becoming a Christian, seeing that he was called “devout” by the manner in which he lived? How could that be? He’s a loathsome pagan!! Is it possible that he wasn’t the last good pagan on the planet that God finds “devout and God-fearing?” Before making any explicit confession of faith in Christ, without any explicit repentence, and before being baptized sacramentally in water, Cornelius and his family were certainly baptized in the Holy Spirit, were they not? Is this not baptism of desire? Wasn’t this desire implicit? If not, cite the passage where his desire for baptism was explicit.

It seems, according to both Scripture and Tradition, Baptism can be sacramental or non-sacramental, just as the Catholic Church teaches. Yet even with non-sacramental Baptism, did you notice that Peter commanded Cornelius and his family and friends to be baptized. That’s right. Commanded. Imagine that, Peter thinking he had the authority to command someone to be sacramentally baptized even though it was evident to him that they were already filled with the Holy Spirit.

Thus, the Church affirms the necessity of sacramental baptism and yet also asserts the efficacy of baptism of desire (e.g., Cornelius) and bapstism of blood (eg. repentent thief). In the words of Pope St. Pius X: “The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire. …”

Even pagans, like Cornelius, may have implicit desire for baptism and die in a state of grace, if they live, like Cornelius, as “devout and God-fearing.” It’s no guarantee. Catholics dont’ guantee Catholics will go to heaven. However, if anyone dies in a state of grace, they “belong” to the Catholic Church by the manner in which they lived, and the grace they were given comes only from Christ.

Do you believe that Pope Eugene is clearly teaching us in his Bull that unbaptized Pagans and Jews who “pour out their blood for the Name of Christ”

have salvation through Pope Pius X teaching on “baptism of blood”?
Pope Eugene is asserting that there is no such thing as baptism by blood for any impenitent sinner who does not abide within the “bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” He’s correct. Eternal life is not an option by any means, martyrdom included, for those impenitent in formal grave sin. He does not address invincible ignorance, nor does he expound upon what abiding “within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” means. Others before him did. Others after him did as well. He simply does not address the distinction between material and formal heresy. The Church interprets this and many other passages in the context of its entire teaching, which does include the distinction between formal and material sin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Well, I’ve been baptized into the Catholic Church, and certainly not excommunicated, so what’s happening to me?

It appears you doubt that each and every word of Scripture is inspired and inerrant, but instead believe that only parts of Scripture are. If this is so, you are at least a heretic, and as such are automatically excommunicated. What is happening to you? I hope you are repenting of such a heretical notion. I don’t presume to believe God is done with you yet.

 

[BlessedBe13]

RBushlow:

Ah, there’s the error. The Church teaches that the scriptures are inerrant. God would have, in fact, stopped them from introducing error in to the scripture.

That in itself seems erronous as it seems to be a circular argument. The Bible says the Church is right and the Church teaches that the Bible is right. Of course one is going to support the other. If if God would have stopped error from entering the Bible, why not stop the “error” in the other “false” relgions, if they really are false?

 

[John_Higgins]

I have waded through this thread and am astonished that (with a few exceptions) no one has quoted anything more recent that the 91 year old Catholic Encyclopedia.

It seems to me the Vicar of Christ has caused to be published the definitive document on the teachings of the Magisterium. I dare to quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”

837 “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 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.*

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.*

John

 

[BlessedBe13]

itsjustdave1988:

It appears you doubt that each and every word of Scripture is inspired and inerrant, but instead believe that only parts of Scripture are. If this is so, you are at least a heretic, and as such are automatically excommunicated. What is happening to you? I hope you are repenting of such a heretical notion. I don’t presume to believe God is done with you yet.

I suppose I’m a heretic to your religion, but you really don’t know what God thinks. And no I doubt god is done with me, I still have faith/a relationship with god, just not from a Catholic viewpoint. Doesn’t make me wrong in the eyes of god. What’s happening to me? Well, right now I’m at work. I’m not repenting my “heretical notion” because I don’t believe I am a heretic, other than in the eyes of your religion.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

BlessedBe13,

Why did you ask the question?

 

[Dan-Man916]

those too may achieve eternal salvation.

this is the operative phrase that is contraversial.
Just what does the word “may” infer?

it doesn’t say they will.
does it mean that they may “if” they eventually come into the Church?

it is at this point where our opinions start to divide.

 

[John_Higgins]

Goodness, we’re not going to get to the point of defining what “is” is…are we?

 

[BlessedBe13]

itsjustdave1988:

BlessedBe13,

Why did you ask the question?

I suppose just curious on opinions. I really don’t believe in hell anyway, I stopped at some point when I was still a practicing Catholic.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Just what does the word “may” infer?

It means that if they die in a state of grace, they will attain eternal life.

How does a pagan die in a state of grace? Trent teaches that even desire for baptism is efficacious for forgivness of sins. Pope St. Pius X teaches that the desire for baptism can be merely implicit (not expressed). That doesn’t mean that the desire is not there. It simply means that the desire does not have to be explicit (expressed). Are they guaranteed eternal life? No. Catholics dont’ guarantee Catholics will attain eternal life. The word “may” applies to everyone excepting those who die impenitent in mortal sin or merely in a state of original sin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

BlessedBe13,

I just found it bizzare that you would ask a question, receive an answer, then begin to tell me why you think my answer was wrong. That happens a lot on these forums.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

John,

I have waded through this thread and am astonished that (with a few exceptions) no one has quoted anything more recent that the 91 year old Catholic Encyclopedia.

My reasoning is that I’ve had these discussion numerous times, mostly with Feeneyites who also believe the current catechism is filled with modernistic errors. I find that starting with Pius IX and Pius X alleviates the charge of modernism, as I’ve never met a Feeneyist willing to charge these fine popes with Modernism.

 

[BlessedBe13]

itsjustdave1988:

BlessedBe13,

I just found it bizzare that you would ask a question, receive an answer, then begin to tell me why you think my answer was wrong. That happens a lot on these forums.

I believe it is called discussion. You tell me your opinion and I respond with mine. You should expect that to happen on these forums since the purpose is for discussion.