You need to read Romans again. Jews are judged by the Law, not Grace.Jews still cannot be saved, outside the church, because all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.
There were many Catholics before Vatican II, including myself who believed in salvation for non-Catholics but if a Roman Catholic nun, priest, bishop or pope dared to teach that, it would have been declared an act of heresy.Reverse your questions. Since all popes are in infallible agreement, how can my understanding be correct? If I have the fullness of truth why don’t I know about invincible ignorance before Vatican II?
There is no conflict at all between the teachings of the popes.
Jews still cannot be saved, outside the church, because all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.
The Law was not able to save anyone.You need to read Romans again. Jews are judged by the Law, not Grace.
Cardinal Kasper has said that the Old Covenant is salvific for the Jews.The Law was not able to save anyone.
.
Hi,I was thinking about the following statements which do not offer eternal life to anyone who is not Roman Catholic. My question is: When or if unity is acheived, what happens to those who lived and died before unity was acheived?
" 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 and heretics and schismatic’s, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her. and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgiving, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian solder. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, not even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
( Pope Eugene IV, the Papal Bull " Cantate Domino", 1441 A.D.)
Got to look it up again but I beleieve there already is an written agreement between thte two Church’s in or fourteen hundred @ a Council of Florence, the Greek Patriarch who participated died before the agreement was fully made, and the New Patriarch didn’t wish to go fourth with the agreement.I would love to be under the omophorion of HH Pope Shenoute III AND HH Pope Benedict XVI.
Locally, I suspect that one bishop would become the proper bishop, and the other would become a co-adjutor bishop, with the right of succession, or an auxiliary bishop.
Since the office of Patriarch and Metropolitan were canonically created, perhaps an office of co-adjutor Patriarch or Metropolitan can also be created.
Blessings
Hi,One thing I was wondering, with the speculation regarding re-unification of the Orthodox Churches with Rome,
Actually, the Orthodox Churches were never “united with Rome” to start with, so there can be no “reunification.” This was expressed in an article by Fr. Robert Taft, SJ.: “EASTERN PRESUPPOSITION” AND WESTERN LITURGICAL RENEWAL.
However, I understand that the Melkite bishops, from the Patriarch on down, have said that they will happy resign their sees if this will facilitate reconciliation with the Antiochian Orthodox.
Hi,And what will Ukrainian Catholics do with St Josaphat ?
Basiclly from what I have experienced with the Local Byzantine Catholic Church, they still do the things they have done culturally, Traditionally. .. but they acknowledge the Pope also as their Spiritual Guide .I lived through Vatican II myself, as a Catholic. Salvation and invincible ignorance are mentioned in this pre-Vatican II statement, Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) December 9, 1854 Singulari Quadem, which is in agreement with those of Vatican II and later:There were many Catholics before Vatican II, including myself who believed in salvation for non-Catholics but if a Roman Catholic nun, priest, bishop or pope dared to teach that, it would have been declared an act of heresy.
Faith orders Us to hold that out of the Apostolic Roman Church no person can be saved, that it is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever will not enter therein shall perish in the waters of the deluge.
On the other hand it is necessary to hold for certain that ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, is not a fault in the eyes of God. But who will presume to arrogate to himself the right to mark the limits of such an ignorance, holding in account the various conditions of peoples, of countries, of minds, and of the infinite multiplicity of human things?
We have learned with grief that another error, not less melancholy, is introduced into certain parts of the Catholic world, and has taken possession of the souls of many Catholics. Carried away with a hope for the eternal salvation of those who are out of the true Church of Christ, they do not cease to inquire with solicitude what shall be the fate and the condition after death of men who are not submissive to the Catholic faith. Seduced by vain reasoning they make to these questions replies conformably to that perverse doctrine. Far from Us, Venerable Brothers, to lay claim to put limits to the Divine mercy, which is infinite! Far from Us to scrutinize the counsels and mysterious judgments of God, unfathomable depth where human thought cannot penetrate !
And also these Eastern Catholic Churches:Hi,
Churches in union with Rome (today)
Armenian Catholic Church - Byzantine Catholic Church - Chaldean Catholic Church (East Syrian) - Coptic Catholic Church - Ethiopian Catholic Church Maronite Church - Melkite Catholic Church - Roman Catholic Church - Romanian Catholic Church - Russian Catholic Church - Ruthenian Catholic Church - Syro-Malabar Catholic Church - Ukrania Catholic Church - West Syrian Catholic Church
Basiclly from what I have experienced with the Local Byzantine Catholic Church, they still do the things they have done culturally, Traditionally. … but they acknowledge the Pope also as their Spiritual Guide .
Churches Rome shares goal of full, visible unity
Eastern Orthodox (Byzantine Tradition Churches: Greek, Russian, Serbian, Arab, etc.) Oriental Orthodox Churches (Armenian, Syrian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Indian Syrian) Assyrian Church of the East Polish National Catholic Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church (Lutheran World Federation) Anglican Communion Reformed (Calvinist: Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, Dutch origin churches-RCA & CRC) Methodist (United, African Methodist) Christian Church/Disciples of Christ
God Bless,
John
Not all saints have been Canonized by Rome, back in the day the Local Churches/ dioceses honored and venerated Local saints, i.e. I believe St. Patrick has never been canonized by Rome, however, He is acknowledged by His Local Diocese,which later when the Irish migrated to these United States, they brought love of their Patron Saint and Honored and venerated Him here. Canonization of Saints by the Church is a fairly new process. So Whatever other Catholic Churches come in union with Rome Their particular saints would not be a problem in unification.Venerate him as always. He is a canonized saint. Canonization is infallible. Blessed Leonid Feodorov didn’t have a problem with him did he? Of course not because he realized that the Catholic Church is the True Church. Once you realize that everything else follows.
I see, but why was salvation for non-Catholics so hard for devout Catholics to accept if it was not a new idea?I lived through Vatican II myself, as a Catholic. Salvation and invincible ignorance are mentioned in this pre-Vatican II statement, Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) December 9, 1854 Singulari Quadem, which is in agreement with those of Vatican II and later:
rubricsandritual.blogspot.com/2007/12/singulari-quaedam.html
In part, because it flies in the face of the duty to bring Christ to all the world.I see, but why was salvation for non-Catholics so hard for devout Catholics to accept if it was not a new idea?
I suppose some did not study the post-confirmation catechism. Baltimore Catechism No. 3 (Fr.Kinkead commentary, Benziger Bros., 1921 edition) says (Lesson 11 – On the Church and Lesson 14 – Baptism):I see, but why was salvation for non-Catholics so hard for devout Catholics to accept if it was not a new idea?
Notice that number 650 and 651 have a braced number after them, meaning they are covered in catechism No. 2 & 4. The others are just in No. 3.Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the
Catholic Church to be the true Church?
A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic
Church to be the true Church, provided that person: (1) has been validly
baptized; (2) firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to
be the true religion, and (3) dies without the guilt of mortal sin on
his soul.
Q. 511. Why do we say it is only possible for a person to be saved who
does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
A. We say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know
the Catholic Church to be the true Church, because the necessary
conditions are not often found, especially that of dying in a state of
grace without making use of the Sacrament of Penance.
Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons are said to belong to the “soul of the church”; that is,
they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who
share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or
visible part of the Church.
Q. 650. {159} What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all
that God has ordained for our salvation.
Q. 651. {160} What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood for the faith of
Christ.
Q. 652. What is the baptism of blood most commonly called?
A. The baptism of blood is most commonly called martyrdom, and those who
receive it are called martyrs. It is the death one patiently suffers
from the enemies of our religion, rather than give up Catholic faith or
virtue. We must not seek martyrdom, though we must endure it when it
comes.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save
us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is
impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which
teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission
of sins; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down
their life for His sake or for His teaching.
We have to understand the arrangements of the time.Actually, the Orthodox Churches were never “united with Rome” to start with, so there can be no “reunification.” This was expressed in an article by Fr. Robert Taft, SJ.: “EASTERN PRESUPPOSITION” AND WESTERN LITURGICAL RENEWAL.
There was no ‘one’ corporate church, each church was local (based on a city) and self governed by locally chosen bishops grouped into synods, so they were partners working together with a ‘mother’ church which often sponsored and supported the others when they were still missions. Arrangements were made to assure no overlapping and ‘duplicating/competing’ by mutual agreement to ‘one city - one bishop’ principles. Mutual agreements were possible through gatherings of bishops in councils, sometimes these councils were just for one synod, and sometimes they had wider participation.
These local councils could be called by any major prelate. Their importance to us today usually rests on how many bishops participated, and who they were. The Ecumenical councils were called because the emperors wanted them called, and the proceedings were sometimes if not usually chaired by the local bishop of the host city. The term ‘ecumenical’ refers to the empire, which was ‘theoretically’ supposed to be a worldwide political phenomenon, hence these were councils with multiple participating church synods from within the empire and as many Christian bishops from outside the empire as could come.
It is possible for separate and distinct self governing ‘churches’ to believe and teach the same things, and thus maintain a relationship of communion between them.
‘Unification’ as a term implies, at least to some people, some sort of corporate merging of organizations, this is not at all how the early church was structured and is not necessary for intercommunion to be a future possibility.
Hello Heychios,We have to understand the arrangements of the time.
There was no ‘one’ corporate church, each church was local (based on a city) and self governed by locally chosen bishops grouped into synods, so they were partners working together with a ‘mother’ church which often sponsored and supported the others when they were still missions. …
‘Unification’ as a term implies, at least to some people, some sort of corporate merging of organizations, this is not at all how the early church was structured and is not necessary for intercommunion to be a future possibility.
Why did Cardinal humbertus break away from the Orthodox Church by laying a bull of excommunication against M. Cerularius on the altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054? I read somewhere that the reason the Rome wanted to split off from the Church was that they did not agree with the use of leavened bread or with the omission of the filioque from the creed or with the married clergy? Do you agree that these were the reasons listed in the bull of excommunication?Hello Heychios,
Yes time is important, but you have misconstrued it concerning Church History,
In 100 a.d. there is One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church… There were major Sees but one Church,
St. Augustine Of Alexandria on a decision to a controversy within the Catholic Church five holy Sees, “Rome has spoken that is the end of the Matter”
J.N.D. Kelly, one of the greatest patristic scholars of the 20th century, and an Anglican, writes to the contrary in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines (HarperSanFrancisco, 1978) :
“According to him [St. Augustine], the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and sacraments…but cannot put them to a profitable use since the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24; 7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]…It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome…By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms…The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan.” (Kelly, page 412, 413, 417)
In further support of the above statement from J.N.D. Kelly, the following shall be sufficient proof that St. Augustine, and the Catholic Church of his day (late 4th/early 5th century), believed that
(1) the Bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter, held the primacy of jurisdiction in the Church;
(2) the Pope in this position had the final say on matters of doctrine (we shall discuss the history of the Pelagian heresy) and was indeed the final arbiter of truth and thus infallible;
(3) St. Augustine’s “Rome has spoken; the case is closed” is indeed an accurate summary of his belief on the matter (from his Sermons 131:10);
(4) Further, we shall discuss the role of the African bishops, and Popes Innocent I and Zosimus (the latter is used as an instance of “papal fallibility”) during the Pelagian controversy.
Russian Orthodox rises:
The growing might of the Russian state contributed also to the growing authority of the Autocephalous Russian Church. In **1589, **Metropolitan Job of Moscow became the first Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’; making the Russian Church one of the five honorable Patriarchates.
However, in **1721 Tsar Peter I abolished completely the patriarchate **and so the Church effectively became a department of the government, ruled by a Most Holy Synod composed of senior bishops and lay bureaucrats appointed by the Tsar himself. An independent (from the state) patriarchate was reestablished in 1917, but after the death in 1925 of Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow, who had been persecuted by the Soviet authorities, the patriarchate remained vacant until 1943, when, during the Second World War, the Soviet government allowed somewhat greater freedom to the Church.
The Uniate question: [a member of an Eastern church that is in union with the Roman Catholic Church, acknowledges the Roman pope as supreme in matters of faith, but maintains its own liturgy, discipline, and rite.]
The Eastern Catholic Churches consider themselves** to have reconciled the East and West Schism** by keeping their prayers and rituals similar to those of Eastern Orthodoxy, while also accepting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Some Eastern Orthodox charge that joining in this unity comes at the expense of ignoring critical doctrinal differences and past atrocities.
All Protestant faiths are breakaways from the Roman Catholic Church, ergo can RE- unite with it, if they so choose.
There were several schisms Coptic, who St Mark taught, and was Martyred 68 a.d. in Alexandria, In or about approximately 6th a.d. the Coptic Church was exiled due to a misunderstanding.
Sorry to say, Church History says The Catholic Church so called in writing 100 a.d By Irenaeus, of Bishop of Antioch.
God Bless,
John
Really? The schism between the E. Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church has been lifted? That’s great. I thought that they were still out of communion with each other, but it is great to hear that I was wrong on that.“…there is the memory of the decisions, actions and painful incidents which in 1054 resulted in the sentence of excommunication leveled against the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and two other persons by the legate of the Roman See under the leadership of Cardinal Humbertus”.
“These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.”
The schism was lifted in 1965 by both sides.
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration_en.html
The Eastern Orthodox allow their priests to get married so how could they be under the authority of Rome when Rome does not allow priests to be married?The schism was lifted in 1965 by both sides.
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration_en.html