Does Perfect Charity save the non-Believer?

[TOME]

GrandalfTheWhite,
As I have been following the post of this thread I realize that your knowledge of Church dogma is far superior to mine and I may have fallen into the error of mistaking theological opinion for Church doctrine.

So I am hoping you can enlighten me, all of us participating in this discussion, just what is the offical Church teaching from the documents of Vatican II and the encyclical letters of popes Paul VI and John Paul II and Benedict XVI on who can be saved and how?

I am also interested, in and I think this is revelant to our discussion, does the teaching of Vatican II restrict the concept of the Church just to the Roman Catholic Church or does the teaching of Vatican II as well as the encyclical letters of popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI expand the definition of “Church” beyond the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[reluctant_saint]

I am moot on Fatima.

With all your Catholic teaching on Limbo, isn’t it strange that it is being discarded. Reading the link I gave, I am astonished that you want to keep it on-going.

What happened to our Fireman, when the fire got hot and the roof fell in, I don’t know.

What do they say, 'there are no atheists in the foxhole". He certainly was in a foxhold if he was in a collapsing burning building.

You fill in the blanks; make up whatever details you want.

peace

It all depends on what this atheist was going through at the time of his death. He might have been thinking

A) “Well God, I’m sorry for having denied you all my life, and if I could make it up to you, I would, but for now, if you take my life that is only just of you.”

or he may be thinking

B) “D–n! Look at what I got myself into.”

In the second case, it is clear that life-giving charity was never the intention of the firefighter to begin with. Just because a man gives his life to save another does not mean that he intended to do so. Jesus said, “No greater love is there than this, that a man lay down his life for a friend.” The words of Jesus clearly denote not just an action, but an intention. If the firefighter, for instance, intended to save a life, but not at the cost of his own life, then even if he should happen to die, that would not be perfect charity because the will of laying down one’s life was not there. Again, we must differentiate between what happens and what’s intended.

I will, on the other hand, propose that in the case of many firefighters (I’ll not go into how many), they are driven not by a sense of love, but by a sense of duty. It is their duty as citizens to help other people. This is particularly true if patriotism is involved. It is somebody’s duty to fight for their country (for somebody going into the military). In cases like these, people are willing to give up their lives, but not out of love. If they are driven by duty, then the willingness to die for their duty comes not out of love but out of fortitude, which is a natural virtue. If this is the case, we can see how a person could give up his life willingly but still without true charity.

Let us suppose the person here is demonstrating real charity, then in that case, God must have worked a miracle in him, and by the grace of God, that person would have to be saved. (Again, the grace of God saved the man and gave him charity. Charity did not save him.)

But I contend that all along you have totally ignored the possibility that the willingness of a firefighter to die comes from the natural virtue of fortitude and not the theological virtue of charity.

 

[DustinsDad]

The Tradition on the side of Limbo is very weak. Very few say this child got any more than a natural heaven after death, and many saying, without baptism, there was no salvation.

How exactly does few disagreeing with it and many agreeing with it make it weak?

http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif

 

[TOME]

Dustin Dad,
When amoung the few theologians who disagree with the concept of Limbo include such theologians as Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger then this disagreement is a little larger than a few theologians but a serious thological understanding.

 

[DustinsDad]

Dustin Dad,
When amoung the few theologians who disagree with the concept of Limbo include such theologians as Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger then this disagreement is a little larger than a few theologians but a serious thological understanding.

First of all, she (I think it’s a she) was saying it was weak from the “tradition side of things” - I don’t think the last few decades count.

Second of all, I’m not sure we’ve had the final word on what B16 thinks about limbo. He may just surprise you before it’s all said and done. Besides, he and Pope JP2 have merely allowed theologins to speculate about the matter without anything definitive settled…and always with the age-old necessity of baptism of one form or another still in force - the necessity of baptism is dogma, which means it’s truth, which means even a pope can’t overrule it.

Council of Trent, Session VII
ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL Canon IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

That’s just the way it works my friend, sorry.

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

…I am also interested, in and I think this is revelant to our discussion, does the teaching of Vatican II restrict the concept of the Church just to the Roman Catholic Church or does the teaching of Vatican II as well as the encyclical letters of popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI expand the definition of “Church” beyond the Roman Catholic Church?

This was addressed last summer…caused quite a stir…
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH:

RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH
June 29, 2007

FIRST QUESTION

Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

RESPONSE

The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

…

SECOND QUESTION

What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] "This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic …]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him".[7]

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]

All that last paragraph means is that it is theoretically possible for individuals outside the visible bonds of HMC to be united to her in Spirit given certain conditions (that unfortunately are not listed in this document, for that you have to go elsewhere).

All in all, not bad. Good enough to get some folks feathers ruffled. But still a bit fuzzy in areas and can be prone to misinterpretation if one is not well grounded and catechized.

And remember, if Vatican II didn’t change anything, it didn’t change this:
Pope Pius XII:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] **It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of **such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
(Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943)

Or the thrice infallibly defined E.E.N.S. dogma.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[TOME]

Dustin Dad,
I think you may not be aware of the theological shift away from Augustine and his concept of “Original Sin” that has taken placed over the past 100 years but has come to the fore of Catholic theology in the past 50.

I am sure you remember that Augustine developed his theology of Original Sin in response to the Palegian heresey, which was a new kind of heresey for the Church at that time. I am sure in your studies you remember up until Augustine’s time the Church Fathers were combating such heresies as Gnosticism and Manichaeism and the belief that all matter was evil. Palegius, on the other hand, went to the opposite extreme and held that human nature had a super abundance of good in itself so that grace was not needed.

Augustine, which I find interesting, based his concept of Original Sin on his interpertation of the person “Adam” as more than just an individual saw in Adam the figure of the universal man - a concept he adapted from Platonism, thus what was found in Adam is necessarily found in all humans. Thus the sin of one became, in effect, the personal sin of all (please note I used the words “in effect” for a reason). I grant you that Augustine did not creat this in a vacuum there were earlier writers who began to develope this understanding but it found its fullest expression in Augustine.

Augustine also linked Original Sin with concupisence which he found not only in himself but in all humans (consider his example of the small infant who shows all the attributes of concupisence in the child’s envy). According to Augustine, Original Sin is the state all humanity finds itself in but only some are saved by God’s mercy a mercy God gives to those He wills to give it and God only shows such favor, that is salvation, through the gift of faith and Baptism.

But Augustine never really explained in his writings the difference between personal sin and original sin except to say the effects were the same.

Another interesting point I find in Augustine’s teachings on Original Sin is that evil is more pervasive than redemption. Evil is found everywhere but we cannot say the same for redemption.

However, as the middle ages developed, the concept of Original Sin developed to an understanding that went beyond each of us having the effects of the personal sin of Adam, that is Concupisence, but began to understand Original Sin as a lack of Sanctifying Grace caused by Adam’s sin. During this period we have Aquinas’ development of the theology of grace.

The Council of Trent did move away from Augustine in its teaching that Original Sin is a lack rather than linking Original Sin and concupscience. Theology then tried to answer the question of how and why did Adam’s sin effect all humanity?

I think there is one position of modern theological thought, among others, that addresses the question of Limbo that was developed under the Augustinian influence of Original Sin but somewhat “soften” during the Middleages, namely God’s grace is what is all pervasive, not evil not sin. As Catholic we believe in the total effects of the Paschal Mystery and that Christ died for all and it is the Will of the Father to be in communion with all, and we understand that God bestows his grace freely through the merits of Christ’s saving act.

This does not deny that we are born into a state that is fallen but it is through our personal lives that we choose to exist in this fallen state and move further from God or be open to His grace (his life and presence in us) through our lived faith. It is our choice.

But how can a child, an unborn child or infant choose freely?

 

[TOME]

Dustin Dad,
If Vatican II proclaims that the Church “subsist” in the Roman Catholic Church have any of the popes since Vatican II that is Paul VI through Benedict XVI explained what this term subsist means?

 

[DustinsDad]

Dustin Dad,
I think you may not be aware of the theological shift away from Augustine and his concept of “Original Sin” that has taken placed over the past 100 years but has come to the fore of Catholic theology in the past 50

Yeah, there’s been alot of wackiness of late. But my friend, we’ve got infallible and explicit Church Council decrees that thwart any new (did someone say modernist) ideas that have been floating around of late. Pay special attention to the 4th one down there…

Council of Trent, Session V, 1st Decree:

1. 
   *]If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.
   *]If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
   *]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.
   *]If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. .
   

   But how can a child, an unborn child or infant choose freely?

   Exactly.
   
   Peace in Christ,
   
   DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

Dustin Dad,
If Vatican II proclaims that the Church “subsist” in the Roman Catholic Church have any of the popes since Vatican II that is Paul VI through Benedict XVI explained what this term subsist means?

The CDF did - and Pope Benedict XVI approved it…it’s in that document I linked to earlier. Third Q & A I think.

Peace in Christ,

DusitnsDad

 

[mgrfin]

Mgrfin, I noticed a contradiction you made in your statements

Since the council of Orange was in the year 529, I’d like to know who this 18th century theologian who lived in the sixth century was.

The doctrine of limbo (doctrine in the broad sense of the term) was brought about by the theology of St. Augustine. Need I remind you that Augustinianism is also an official theological system in the Catholic Church?

Thanks for bringing that correction forth.

Limbo was done away with at the Council of Carthage in the 5th Century. It came back, and may even be consider Common teaching in the Church.

But now, Limbo is gone. You can hold on to it, but it is not now accepted as “Common Teaching”.

Augustinianism is the official theological system in the Catholic Church? Really, can you give us a source for that?

I love Augustine, but I believed Thomism was the accepted system. I don’t have a source for that, but I accept Thomas as the leader. Was Augustine an Augustinian? Seriously.

The Dominicans would not accept what you say.

Considering that Luther was an Augustinian, I didn’t think that Order would rate very highly. Thomas a Kempis, and who else besides Luther were famous members of that Order?

peace

 

[mgrfin]

How exactly does few disagreeing with it and many agreeing with it make it weak?

Well, it would be nice to have some Scriptural basis for it. And it fails on this totally.

There is no liturgical basis for it as well.

The documents on Augustine seem to deny its existence from the Council of Carthage. Others seem to use him for a source, but I am not interested enough to settle the issue where Augustine stood.

You have to get to Thomas to get some agreement what kind of punishment an unbaptised infant receives. You are moving into the middle ages - that is not how Tradition works. It is not in the Written Word of God, and seems not to be in the Unwritten Word of God.

How could it have any status as a doctrine of the Catholic Church?

peace

 

[mgrfin]

The CDF did - and Pope Benedict XVI approved it…it’s in that document I linked to earlier. Third Q & A I think.

DusitnsDad

Not only did Cardinal Levada of the CDF, but Benedict made it clear that there is no change in the traditional teaching of the Church regarding salvation outside of the Church.

There was a hope there for a while, after Vatican II, but Benedict said ‘no change’.

peace

 

[TOME]

Mgrfin,
Is the a difference between “Salvation” and “being saved”? Is it worng to understand salvation as an objective reality and being saved as something subjective?

 

[TOME]

A thought just struck me as I have ben reflecting on all the post here in this thread. At times it may seem that when I contend that a person who does perfect charity can be saved in a real way expresses what some may see as my belief that the Church is not necessary.

Maybe I do project this attitude but if I do this is my fault because I am proceeding on certain assumptions, taking things for granted that shouldn’t be assumed in such a way.

Maybe this is based on my undestand of my faith as first a gift but along with this gift a vocation. My ecclesiology’s starting point is a high ecclesiology. God revelation came from him it was not the product of human reasoning. Likewise The Church has its origins in God’s activity, the Incarnation, not man’s - that would be building a tower of Bable.

Can God and does God save others outside of the Church - I think he does, but when I think about it this really begs the question about my own personal calling from God to live the Christian life. What about me? What about my salvation? Asking these questions seriously then if I truly believe in God’s revelation how can the answer be anything else but that the Church, which subsist in its fullness in the Roman Catholic Chuch, is necessary for Salvation? If I believe that the Church is the “Body of Christ” how can I believe in equality of all religions? I can’t - I will say there is goodness and some truth found in other religions or philosophies in life but there is only one Church.

However, I think I sometimes fall into the error of thinking because I have the one true faith I have something that others don’t and too bad for them forgetting that it has always been the Church’s teaching that one must follow his well informed conscience and one is not culpable because of invincible ignorance but I too often forget Christ warning that I had better not be the reason for my neighbors invincible ignorance or atleast one of the reasons.

So if I have come across as not believing in the absolute necessity of the Church for Salvation it was more from my perspective of my Faith, while a free gift from a loving Father, is still a demand from God to ME personally to respond to His love.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I don’t compute your response.

“Habit”? The Good Thief on the Cross was not in the habit of anything but thievery. Who knows what the Good Samaritan in the Gospel was in the habit of.

The good thief was at least in the habit of being able to discern holiness when he saw it.

You have no idea what the good thief’s situation in life was! He may have been born into such miserable circumstances that to feed his family he was forced to steal. It is at least incumbant on us as Christians to afford him the most charitable interpretation of why he did his evil deeds as possible until proven otherwise.

The good samaritan apparently also was in the habit of being able to see the suffering of others. The fact that he had that habit is an implicit recognition of Jesus, as Jesus is God and God is love and love is responding charitably to the suffering of others.

The purpose of the exercise is to thinki outside the box. Think of actual grace, and perfect love of neighbor, and perfect love of God.

Don’t pull out some 18lth century theory of Limbo, which has been thrown out by the Church. Limbo is not part of Tradition. This man goes to heaven or hell. You say, “Go in peace to hell”?

Huh!? The person who has no access to knowledge of Jesus as a Christian knows Him worships Jesus in acts of true (perfect) charity. That worship, if persisted in, will form a habit of worshipping Jesus without “being an official member of the Church”, and that habit if persisted in to the end will incline him to choose God at his end.

I am ashamed that Catholic Christians would condemn him to hell, after God called him, moved him to Perfection by actual grace. The man discovered the “Pearl of Great Price” and gave everything he had - his dear life - to possess it.

peace

Only by being in the habit of “being Christ-like” in some manner would one DO great acts of charitable personal sacrifice in the first place.

This “habit” is the functional equivalent of proper worship of Jesus Christ, and inclines one to the disposition to choose correctly at their death.

One single act of self sacrificing charity may or may not allow one to choose heaven, but I would contend that ONLY one who has, most likely unconsciously, formed the habit of worshipping Jesus in this way over considerable time, or in an intense way over a shorter time, would even DO acts of this sort.

 

[TMC]

This was addressed last summer…caused quite a stir…

All that last paragraph means is that it is theoretically possible for individuals outside the visible bonds of HMC to be united to her in Spirit given certain conditions (that unfortunately are not listed in this document, for that you have to go elsewhere).

All in all, not bad. Good enough to get some folks feathers ruffled. But still a bit fuzzy in areas and can be prone to misinterpretation if one is not well grounded and catechized.

And remember, if Vatican II didn’t change anything, it didn’t change this:

Or the thrice infallibly defined E.E.N.S. dogma.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

It is more than theoretically possible that those formally outside the visible Church can be saved:

Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Lumen Gentium 16.

 

[DustinsDad]

Well, it would be nice to have some Scriptural basis for it. And it fails on this totally.

Based on Scripture alone - apart from Tradition and Magesterial Teaching - would be the pit of hell for all unbaptized infants. Unless one is born of water and spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Tradtiion enlightens us about the nuanced understandings of baptism of desire and blood - Magesterial Teaching clarifies confusion.

You desire to interpret Scripture apart from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church betrays your practical protestantism.

There is no liturgical basis for it as well.

Why would there be? And would that really matter to you? Honestly now.

And now that I think about it, there is a liturgical basis for it…infant baptism !

The documents on Augustine seem to deny its existence from the Council of Carthage. Others seem to use him for a source, but I am not interested enough to settle the issue where Augustine stood.

Augusitne addressed the question quite well. Thomas elaborated further. We have two traditional and viable positions given what we do know and what has been defined by the Church - for unbaptized infants it’s the fires of hell albeit mild, or natural happiness without the Beautific Vision. And with these, and with the dogmatic reality of the necessity of baptism protected, you are allowed to speculate and hope that perhaps maybe, just maybe, God does something extraordinary and outside the realm of our understanding in order to give these unbaptized infants a choice for or against Him. That’s the best you can do. Period.

You have to get to Thomas to get some agreement what kind of punishment an unbaptised infant receives.

The agreement that stands uniform and constant from day one is that unbaptized infants cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. What their suffering is like in hell (and limbo is in hell) is all that was speculated on until most recently.

Now me personally, if I had a child that died before birth, miscarried before we had an opportunity to baptize him. What would I do? I’d cry out to God for mercy, I’d acknowledge that neither I, nor my lost child, can lay any claim to heaven whatsoever and that we are utterly unworthy of it, and I would acknowledge what He has revealed, and I would entrust the soul of my child to his mercy and love. And since I trust the Good Lord, I trust that wherever he decides to put my child, it will be fine by me.

How could it have any status as a doctrine of the Catholic Church?

Because it’s been taught and a doctrine is a teaching. It’s not dogmatic in that it’s been explicitly defined, but it’s the logical, traditional, and reasonable result of dogmas that have been explicitely defined.

Perhaps in your mind, defined dogmas are subject to change and evolve into some understanding contrary to what they once were. But of course - you said you weren’t a modernist, so I’m sure you haven’t fallen prey to this heresy of heresies.

DuistinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

It is more than theoretically possible that those formally outside the visible Church can be saved:

Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Lumen Gentium 16.

That paragraph describes the theoretical possibility. Not as explicitly as in the past, but it’s there. It’s still easy to come away with a misunderstanding though.

 

[mgrfin]

One single act of self sacrificing charity may or may not allow one to choose heaven, but I would contend that ONLY one who has, most likely unconsciously, formed the habit of worshipping Jesus in this way over considerable time, or in an intense way over a shorter time, would even DO acts of this sort.

To you, good acts are habitual, to the point that a really evil person is not going to turn his life around, or to be saved.

This is pure nonsense. We do not know that the Good Thief was a good man, or that the Good Samaritan was in the habit of doing good deeds.

Hardened criminals, sinners of the worst variety, who would cut your throat as soon as look at you can repent in an instant.

The story of the Good Thief is meant to show this to us. He was a death bed confession of a bad man.

It is nice to talk about ‘habit’, and I do believe in it. But a life of ‘good habits’ begins with a small step. Where the repentant sinner has been has been a habit of sinning, transformed by God’s grace to just just one good act, to begin a good life.

The worst of humans can finally accept the actual grace to turn things around. Bad habits can become one good act by Grace.

peace