Has Ecumenism changed the meaning of EENS?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kathryn_Ann
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thewanderer said:
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?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it is possible in the case of someone who has the possibility of conversion to the Catholic faith, which would be almost everyone on the Earth these days

In the case of some stone-age indian living in the depths of the amazon rainforest and has never had any contact whatsoever with the outside world, then perhaps the situation referred to by Pope Pius IX would be possible, although still extremely improbable, in my opinion.
 
TrueLight said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ah, but what I described above encompasses what both sides of this discussion are saying.
 
Actually, I went and looked up some more teachings on the implicit baptism by desire.

It seems to have been promoted not just by St. Pius X, but also by Pope Pius IX, and St Alphonsus Ligouri

“17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: 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.” Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized
“baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” “flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind “flamen”]. Now it is “de fide” that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent” St. Alphonsus Ligouri’s Moral Theology Manual (15th century), Bk. 6, no. 95., Concerning Baptism

“Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.” Encyclical On Promotion of False Doctrines (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore) by Pope Pius IX, 1863

Also… I found an interesting blog article which claims that St. Thomas also believes in an implicit baptism by desire. I am well aware of the dangers of taking St. Thomas out of context, so I cannot vouch for it, but here is the link in case you are interested.

cantuar.blogspot.com/2009/04/implicit-baptism-of-desire-in-thomas.html
 
adrift said:
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

So the dogma is not outside the Church but more correctly without the Church there is no salvation.
Click to expand...
This an undisguised attempt to destroy the dogma.
It fails because this is not how the dogma was understood for the past 2000 years.

When you have a constant teaching for 2000 years, just retranslating the dogma to mean something different isn’t a convincing argument for change.
 
Julia_Mae said:
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.
Click to expand...
Completely wrong. We can only understand the new properly if it is understood in continuity with the old. This is a major theme of Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate.
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
Click to expand...
Not at all. There is no reason to think that newer statements are more accurate or better understanding of doctrine. They could easily be more confusing, more ambiguous, more vague, more easily misunderstood than the old.

Nothing protects the Church from that.
 
thewanderer said:
Just curious, do you agree that my presentation of implicit baptism by desire allows ffor the possibility that such people be saved?
Click to expand...
Uhhhhh…:o…

Could you give me the post #? You mean unbaptized people or heretics who deny Vat 2?

(Sorry, I often have trouble in these complex threads keeping it all straight!)
 
Julia_Mae said:
Uhhhhh…:o…

Could you give me the post #? You mean unbaptized people or heretics who deny Vat 2?

(Sorry, I often have trouble in these complex threads keeping it all straight!)
Click to expand...
What does it mean to deny Vat II?
 
wasserfall said:
I don’t think it is possible in the case of someone who has the possibility of conversion to the Catholic faith, which would be almost everyone on the Earth these days

In the case of some stone-age indian living in the depths of the amazon rainforest and has never had any contact whatsoever with the outside world, then perhaps the situation referred to by Pope Pius IX would be possible, although still extremely improbable, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Do you at least recognize that this is your own interpretation and not an official Church teaching?

I personally fail to see how one can say it is impossible for any person to have a perfect act of contrition, no matter what has happened in their life. It is God who gives the Grace for such an act and He can give it to whomsoever He will.
 
Julia_Mae said:
Uhhhhh…:o…

Could you give me the post #? You mean unbaptized people or heretics who deny Vat 2?

(Sorry, I often have trouble in these complex threads keeping it all straight!)
Click to expand...
I mean those who are not formally members of the Catholic Church, in fact, it is not just through an implicit baptism of desire, but this is one of the means. I spent a long time trying to explain this so it is spread throughout a lot of posts, but if you want a specific post that sums it up here is one from earlier on the thread that sums up my understanding quite well.
thistle said:
Two Church teachings:
  • Baptism is NECESSARY for salvation (but does not ensure it. you must die in a state of grace)
  • There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church
How can someone be baptised and a Catholic?
  • Sacramental Baptism as a Catholic
  • Baptism of Blood (non-Catholic dying for the Catholic faith)
  • Baptism of desire - Explicit (those who want to know more about Christ and have the desire to get baptised but die before scaramental baptism - e.g.those in RCIA)
  • Baptism of Desire - Implicit (those who may (not will) be saved through invincible ignorance meaning those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ, his Gospel and his Church but nevertheless in that ignorance still live a life in accordance with Christ’s teachings)
You may debate who is captured under invincible ignorance but outside the above four forms of baptism there is no salvation.

Not all Catholics are saved but everyone in Heaven is Catholic.
Click to expand...
If you want more clarification on this feel free to ask. 🙂
 
thewanderer said:
Actually, I went and looked up some more teachings on the implicit baptism by desire. It seems to have been promoted not just by St. Pius X, but also by Pope Pius IX, and St Alphonsus Liguori … I found an interesting blog article which claims that St. Thomas.
Click to expand...
Yes. That is essentially the identical doctrine as that taught in the quote from Pope Pius IX, and my comment on it is the same.
 
Adrift and Julia Mae

Just for clarification, what exactly is it that you believe is false in saying that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic church?

do you think that this implies that some people do not have an opportunity of attaining salvation? Or is it something else?
 
wasserfall said:
What in the world do you mean by “denying the validity”?
I’m not aware of any Catholic who denies that the 2nd Vatican Council was an actual ecumenical council.

But I am aware of Catholics who say that Vatican II defined no dogma and changed no doctrine. One such Catholic, for example, is Pope Benedict XVI who, as Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1988:

The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately
chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat
it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the
importance of all the rest.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but he was just another Cardinal giving an opinion, right?

I didn’t say they defined dogma. Dogma is dogma. They simply explained it for those who tend to think they have the Magesterium, and so, we understand that salvation is possible for all. Otherwise we might start taking bits of writings in other languages hundreds of years old and use them to prop up our personal belief system instead of accepting what the Church says. So the Church explains again and again, explicating the matter further, and translating onto our vernacular so we cannot possibly mistake the meaning.

The Church says: salvation is not limited to persons who practiced the Catholic Faith during physical life, nor is it assured to them. Salvation is certainly possible for the Jews. And others.

BTW, that Cardinal you so blithely dismissed was:

Swiss Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoke to reporters May 16 after delivering a speech on Catholic-Jewish relations in light of Vatican II’s declaration “Nostra Aetate” on the church’s relations with non-Christian religions.

Appointed by the Pope speaking for the Church.

Who’s your guy? Acting in an official capacity or just noodling in public? I think we should have dueling Cardinals and add some excitement to the ol’ thread!
 
wasserfall said:
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.
Click to expand...
WE aren’t the ones whose job it is to take history into account when promulgating Truth. OUR job is to accept what we are told by those empowered by the Holy Spirit to teach us. And we don’t get to dismiss what is said because WE think it might contradict what came before.

It’s actually none of our business.
 
Regardless of what anyone here says, Vatican II has stated that Protestants are our brothers and sisters in Christ because they have a valid baptism. “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.”~ St. Augustine of Hippo
 
wasserfall said:
Yes. That is essentially the identical doctrine as that taught in the quote from Pope Pius IX, and my comment on it is the same.
Click to expand...
I realize that it is essentially the same doctrine… I just guess I figured the fact that it was taught by more than just St. Pius the X gave it more weight than you implied it had, even if it is not an infallibly defined dogma. At the very least to claim that it is impossible for God to save those who are ignorant of the Catholic Church through no fault of their own is heretical, so whether or not you believe this will actually ever happen, it certainly is not the teaching of the Church that it could never happen.
 
adrift said:
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

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

.
Click to expand...
Nicely done. This is excellent. And as Church is the body of which Christ is the head, then we can say “there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ.”

And He said His Father wanted everyone to be saved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top