Has Ecumenism changed the meaning of EENS?

[wasserfall]

Whether a baptism by desire occurss moments before death or after death hardly makes a difference as to who can be saved, which is what the controversy here was about. I am open to either possibility, although, of coursse, if the Church has an official teaching on it I will accept it as true. But I really don’t see how it makes much of a difference.

The problem we have in this thread is that many people wish to read the CCC or a statement by Pope John Paul II, and then interpret those things in a way that contradicts infallible definitions from ecumenical councils and the constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years.

An example is poster “adrift”, who posted a quote from Pope Pius IX saying that some person who is not visibly in the Church might be able to be saved IF THAT PERSON WAS FREE FROM ALL SIN.

When I pointed out the proviso that the blessed Pope gave, that the person in question must be free from all sin, the only response was to repost the exact same quote and claim that it proved that any non Catholic can be saved.

That’s what makes this thread worthless. People are not willing to read, not willing to accept statement, teaching, definition, or declaration from anybody before 1970, when in fact it is absolutely necessary to interpret postconciliar teaches in conformity with preconciliar teachings in order to preserve the truth.

What is going on here is EXACTLY what Pope Benedict condemned in 2005 – The “hermeneutic of rupture”, where people act as though the 2nd Vatican Council rebooted the Church; started everything from scratch, and all doctrines are now up in the air and can be reinterpreted however we like… however makes us feel better.

We, as Catholics need to wake up and realize that the constant teaching of saints, fathers of the Church, doctors of the Church, Popes, and councils for 2000 years is that salvation is NOT EASY. That Christ founded the Church to give people a path to salvation because otherwise there would be little hope of salvation.

If people can ordinarily be saved without the Church, then the Church is unnecessary. Some people posting here seem to go so far as to believe that it is easier for non-Catholics to be saved as they are “ignorant of the truth”. But in fact non-Catholics can almost never be saved. It is a dogma of the faith that no one can be saved without being in the state of grace, and 1) people who haven’t been baptized aren’t in the state of grace 2) people who have committed any grave sin at any point in their life aren’t in the state of grace.

Face it folks, most people on the Earth are damned. This isn’t a dogma of the Church, it’s just common sense. And it is the reason why Christ commanded the apostles to go and baptize all nations unto the remission of sins – so that men don’t have to be damned for all eternity.

 

[wasserfall]

Is a validly baptized practicing Lutheran part of the Church? Let’s make it even easier, is a newly baptized Lutheran infant part of the Church?

No and Yes.

 

[MariaG]

No and Yes.

maybe a little clarification!lol!

what qualifications would you put on the no and yes?

 

[thewanderer]

I am pleased that a few think it is just semantics going on here.

But just to find out, let me ask this question. No need to quote anything. Just your answer with the understanding that whichever answer, lots could be cited.

Is a validly baptized practicing Lutheran part of the Church? Let’s make it even easier, is a newly baptized Lutheran infant part of the Church?

That is a question that I am hesitant to answer as I am not sure exactly what the Church teaches about it. I know that such a person has the possibility of attaining salvation, but they cannot be considered fully a part of the Catholic Church. Beyond this I am not sure and I am content to await further Church teaching before making up my mind on this matter.

 

[thewanderer]

The problem we have in this thread is that many people wish to read the CCC or a statement by Pope John Paul II, and then interpret those things in a way that contradicts infallible definitions from ecumenical councils and the constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years.

An example is poster “adrift”, who posted a quote from Pope Pius IX saying that some person who is not visibly in the Church might be able to be saved IF THAT PERSON WAS FREE FROM ALL SIN.

When I pointed out the proviso that the blessed Pope gave, that the person in question must be free from all sin, the only response was to repost the exact same quote and claim that it proved that any non Catholic can be saved.

That’s what makes this thread worthless. People are not willing to read, not willing to accept statement, teaching, definition, or declaration from anybody before 1970, when in fact it is absolutely necessary to interpret postconciliar teaches in conformity with preconciliar teachings in order to preserve the truth.

What is going on here is EXACTLY what Pope Benedict condemned in 2005 – The “hermeneutic of rupture”, where people act as though the 2nd Vatican Council rebooted the Church; started everything from scratch, and all doctrines are now up in the air and can be reinterpreted however we like… however makes us feel better.

We, as Catholics need to wake up and realize that the constant teaching of saints, fathers of the Church, doctors of the Church, Popes, and councils for 2000 years is that salvation is NOT EASY. That Christ founded the Church to give people a path to salvation because otherwise there would be little hope of salvation.

If people can ordinarily be saved without the Church, then the Church is unnecessary. Some people posting here seem to go so far as to believe that it is easier for non-Catholics to be saved as they are “ignorant of the truth”. But in fact non-Catholics can almost never be saved. It is a dogma of the faith that no one can be saved without being in the state of grace, and 1) people who haven’t been baptized aren’t in the state of grace 2) people who have committed any grave sin at any point in their life aren’t in the state of grace.

Face it folks, most people on the Earth are damned. This isn’t a dogma of the Church, it’s just common sense. And it is the reason why Christ commanded the apostles to go and baptize all nations unto the remission of sins – so that men don’t have to be damned for all eternity.

I’m not sure why you keep pushing that they must be free from all sin… isn’t this what Baptism does? it frees us from sin and unites us both to the Church and to Christ? Therefore if someone receives baptism through any of its forms they are free from sin and have the possibility to enter heaven.

Wasserfall, please answer me this question, does every person have the possibility of attaining salvation?

 

[BListon]

I believe Protestants go to Purgatory, along with those Catholics who died in a state of grace, yet have venial sins to be cleansed from… As for salvation outside the Church, one of my favorite saints, St. Augustine of Hippo, made it clear that there is both a VISIBLE Church, and an INVISIBLE Church. Those part of the visible Church, are those who are physically members of the Holy Catholic Church, but there are also those that are members invisibly, such as those who are not members of the physical Church, yet have been baptized in the Trinitarian Formula ( In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), these baptisms are approved by the Holy See, and are therefore valid. Also there are those who are in a state of baptism of desire (Such as those in RCIA, or those who want to be Catholic, but can’t because of accessiblity, or their parents don’t approve.)

God Bless:thumbsup:

Brandon

 

[MariaG]

That is a question that I am hesitant to answer as I am not sure exactly what the Church teaches about it. I know that such a person has the possibility of attaining salvation, but they cannot be considered fully a part of the Catholic Church. Beyond this I am not sure and I am content to await further Church teaching before making up my mind on this matter.

Hmm. Interesting. I thought with all the citations that the ones about it being through baptism we are made members if the Church ( visible or invisible) this was an easy question.

I would just leave you with a thought. If you have children in the Latin rite, they do not receive confirmation and communion til much later. Besides being a visible member of the church, what is the difference between the salvation of those two infants?

 

[wasserfall]

one of my favorite saints, St. Augustine of Hippo, made it clear that there is both a VISIBLE Church, and an INVISIBLE Church.

Please give a citation for this – a pointer to some actual text written by St. Augustine.
I’d like to read it.

Thanks.

 

[thewanderer]

Hmm. Interesting. I thought with all the citations that the ones about it being through baptism we are made members if the Church ( visible or invisible) this was an easy question.

I would just leave you with a thought. If you have children in the Latin rite, they do not receive confirmation and communion til much later. Besides being a visible member of the church, what is the difference between the salvation of those two infants?

Well, one will be brought up in the fullness of truth with more aids to remain on the correct path, but apart from that I do not know and so I do not presume to say where the Church herself has not yet made an explicit judgement.

 

[MariaG]

Well, one will be brought up in the fullness of truth with more aids to remain on the correct path, but apart from that I do not know and so I do not presume to say where the Church herself has not yet made an explicit judgement.

You are jumping ahead. This is a question about the infants. Not their future formation or lack thereof. We are keeping it as simple as possible.

Is a Newly baptized Lutheran infant a member of the Catholic Church visible or invisible?

 

[wasserfall]

I’m not sure why you keep pushing that they must be free from all sin… isn’t this what Baptism does? it frees us from sin and unites us both to the Church and to Christ?

Sure. The Council of Trent teaches the baptism of water, blood, and desire.
The baptism of blood and the baptism of desire are traditionally thought to apply only to catechumens. Those persons who already wish to join the Church, but who are not yet baptized because the Church makes them wait until their catechumenate has ended.

Other people in this thread have been talking about a baptism of implicit desire. Personally, I’m not aware of this possibility being a de fide teaching of the Church, so I’m open to the possibility that it does not exist. St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in a baptism of implicit desire. He argued that God would make sure that every person who God knows will convert can hear the gospel in some way, even if that involves a miracle, or an angel coming down from heaven to preach to the person.

However, Pope Pius IX does seem to admit of the possibility of a baptism of implicit desire. However, he makes clear that this would be the case of someone who has such natural virtue, that they flawlessly obey the natural law and have perfect love for God who, although they have not heard the Gospel, they infer from the evidence of all creation. This would be like making an act of perfect contrition, only more difficult, because the person has never been taught the true religion and doesn’t explicitly know the need for an act of perfect contrition.

Pope Pius IX explained that he considers this a necessary possibility because if one said that a person of such flawless natural virtue would be nonetheless condemned, it would be an injustice, and God is perfectly just.

But we know what people are like. People have concupiscence. Without being instructed in religion, people are prone to sin and lack perfect charity. The actual existence of such a person as described above is extremely improbable.

Wasserfall, please answer me this question, does every person have the possibility of attaining salvation?

The Church teaches that every person receives sufficient graces for their salvation.

But those graces are, generally speaking, going to be graces of conversion, not a magic “get out of hell free card”. When people receive these graces of conversion and yet refuse to enter the Church, they damn themselves.

We have to remember that “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is a dogma of the Church. It is de fide. This teaching can never be reformed.

It is legitimate to try to understand who can be counted as “in the Church” when considering this dogma, but to stretch the definition to the point of claiming that all people on earth are “in the Church” for the purpose of understanding the dogma is certainly going far beyond the truth. The dogma was never understood in that manner in the past, and Vatican I requires us to understand dogma in the sense that they have always been understood. We can’t pretend to “deepen our understanding” in such a way that the dogma means the opposite of what people thought it meant 500 years ago.

 

[wasserfall]

You are jumping ahead. This is a question about the infants. Not their future formation or lack thereof. We are keeping it as simple as possible.

Is a Newly baptized Lutheran infant a member of the Catholic Church visible or invisible?

Assuming the infant was baptized with proper form, matter, and intent, (which is usually the case with Lutherans), then the infant was baptized into the one and only Church. That is, the Catholic Church, because there is only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

When a child so baptized attains the age of reason and willingly accepts the false doctrines of the non-Catholic Christian community, then he separates himself from the Church. If this were not so, then the Church would not require converts from protestant denominations to be formally received into the Church, they could simply confess and be done with it.

 

[MariaG]

Assuming the infant was baptized with proper form, matter, and intent, (which is usually the case with Lutherans), then the infant was baptized into the one and only Church. That is, the Catholic Church, because there is only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Okay. Any nay Sayers to this?

 

[Melchior_1]

When a child so baptized attains the age of reason and willingly accepts the false doctrines of the non-Catholic Christian community, then he separates himself from the Church. If this were not so, then the Church would not require converts from protestant denominations to be formally received into the Church, they could simply confess and be done with it.

I know that a convert with a valid baptism doesn’t actually need RCIA, they are included for convenience sakes when it comes to educating folks about the faith.

A profession of faith, yes. Confirmation would be ideal.

 

[wasserfall]

I know that a convert with a valid baptism doesn’t actually need RCIA, they are included for convenience sakes when it comes to educating folks about the faith.

Correct, but they do have to be formally received into the Church.

 

[thewanderer]

Sure. The Council of Trent teaches the baptism of water, blood, and desire.
The baptism of blood and the baptism of desire are traditionally thought to apply only to catechumens. Those persons who already wish to join the Church, but who are not yet baptized because the Church makes them wait until their catechumenate has ended.

Other people in this thread have been talking about a baptism of implicit desire. Personally, I’m not aware of this possibility being a de fide teaching of the Church, so I’m open to the possibility that it does not exist. St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in a baptism of implicit desire. He argued that God would make sure that every person who God knows will convert can hear the gospel in some way, even if that involves a miracle, or an angel coming down from heaven to preach to the person.

However, Pope Pius IX does seem to admit of the possibility of a baptism of implicit desire. However, he makes clear that this would be the case of someone who has such natural virtue, that they flawlessly obey the natural law and have perfect love for God who, although they have not heard the Gospel, they infer from the evidence of all creation. This would be like making an act of perfect contrition, only more difficult, because the person has never been taught the true religion and doesn’t explicitly know the need for an act of perfect contrition.

Pope Pius IX explained that he considers this a necessary possibility because if one said that a person of such flawless natural virtue would be nonetheless condemned, it would be an injustice, and God is perfectly just.

But we know what people are like. People have concupiscence. Without being instructed in religion, people are prone to sin and lack perfect charity. The actual existence of such a person as described above is extremely improbable.

The Church teaches that every person receives sufficient graces for their salvation.

But those graces are, generally speaking, going to be graces of conversion, not a magic “get out of hell free card”. When people receive these graces of conversion and yet refuse to enter the Church, they damn themselves.

We have to remember that “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is a dogma of the Church. It is de fide. This teaching can never be reformed.

It is legitimate to try to understand who can be counted as “in the Church” when considering this dogma, but to stretch the definition to the point of claiming that all people on earth are “in the Church” for the purpose of understanding the dogma is certainly going far beyond the truth. The dogma was never understood in that manner in the past, and Vatican I requires us to understand dogma in the sense that they have always been understood. We can’t pretend to “deepen our understanding” in such a way that the dogma means the opposite of what people thought it meant 500 years ago.

One more question.

Do you admit the possibility, however rare you think it might occur that those of other faiths can make a perfect act of contirition and so be freed from their sin?

 

[adrift]

It’s about Pope Boniface VIII and the papal bull “UNAM SANCTAM” (1302). A political move more than anything which was quickly abandoned by his near predecessors and every pope since then as just that: politics.

.

Abandoned? No. Politics not entirely. Taken out of context most definitely.
[
The Unam Sanctam “Problem” Resolved

Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?](Unam Sanctam "Problem" Resolved)

Unam Sanctam

 

[TrueLight]

I know that a convert with a valid baptism doesn’t actually need RCIA, they are included for convenience sakes when it comes to educating folks about the faith.

A profession of faith, yes. Confirmation would be ideal.

I was received via the traditional rite. My Profession of faith included an acknowledgement that outside of the Catholic Church no one can be saved.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Just as it is wrong to deny any of the teaching that came before Vatican II.

I don’t deny a thing, but when something more recent is available, the older documents are essentially irrelevant to us. Not to the Church, but to you and I.

Obviously, the Church cannot err in Her Magesterium, so the Vatican 2 teachings are based on the higher and better understandings of what came before of those to whom we submit in faith and humility through Grace.

Whatever* we* think of whatever came before is without weight. Only the teaching of the Church in this matter is relevant. We have been clearly told what we are required to believe.

Salvation is possible for all.

 

[adrift]

We have to remember that “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is a dogma of the Church. It is de fide. This teaching can never be reformed.

It is legitimate to try to understand who can be counted as “in the Church” when considering this dogma, but to stretch the definition to the point of claiming that all people on earth are “in the Church” for the purpose of understanding the dogma is certainly going far beyond the truth. The dogma was never understood in that manner in the past, and Vatican I requires us to understand dogma in the sense that they have always been understood. We can’t pretend to “deepen our understanding” in such a way that the dogma means the opposite of what people thought it meant 500 years ago.

It is what the teaching actually is that is at the center of the debate.
I have already presented this but perhaps it was missed

Many people translate the Latin phrase extra acclaim nulla salus as “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” This translation does not seem entirely faithful to the Latin meaning, and contributes to the misunderstanding of the phrase.

The Latin word “extra” is both an adverb and preposition. Depending on its use in a sentence, the word has different meanings. When used to describe spatial relations between objects, the word is translated as “beyond” or “outside of” (e.g., Beyond the creek is a tree; or, James is outside of the room). When used to describe abstract relations between concepts or intangible things, the word is commonly translated “without” (e.g., Without a method, it is difficult to teach). Within the phrase in question, extra is a preposition describing the abstract relationship of the Church to salvation. Considering the Latin nuances of the word, a proper translation would be, “Without the Church there is no salvation.” This translation more accurately reflects the doctrinal meaning of the phrase.

So the dogman is not outside the Church but more correctly without the Church there is no salvation.

.