Has Ecumenism changed the meaning of EENS?

[Julia_Mae]

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.

Srsly? Your version of God is that every single person on earth should be expected of their own accord to take instruction in the Catholic faith so they can join it and if they don’t they go to hell, even though they never had any reason in their own lives to go through RCIA?

You think if we just put up billboards that say “WE ARE THE ONE TRUE FAITH” that means all who don’t join are condemned?

That ain’t my God.

 

[wasserfall]

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.

It’s not impossible for anyone to make a perfect act of contrition. But it is not easy either.
Also, God respects our free will. He gives all men sufficient grace for salvation, but most do not correspond with his graces.

 

[TEPO]

This topic has been discussed here many times before, though it never seems to draw so much confusion.

Heretics have split the Church into sects. Those who are born into different sects are not at fault, however the original heretics are. Those who follow Christ are considered part of the Church even if they go to Sunday meetins’ for the food. Those who are Catholic worship the Lord properly. We have the Sacraments.

 

[Rich_C]

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.

That’s not even what Wasserfall said. He said both. You’re saying either/or. Re-read his posts.

 

[wasserfall]

Srsly? Your version of God is that every single person on earth should be expected of their own accord to take instruction in the Catholic faith so they can join it and if they don’t they go to hell, even though they never had any reason in their own lives to go through RCIA?

You think if we just put up billboards that say “WE ARE THE ONE TRUE FAITH” that means all who don’t join are condemned?

That ain’t my God.

You should spend some time studying the Fathers, and Doctors of the Church so as to make sure that you have the same God they did.

I mean that seriously. I’m not trying to be sarcastic.

 

[wasserfall]

This topic has been discussed here many times before, though it never seems to draw so much confusion.

Heretics have split the Church into sects. Those who are born into different sects are not at fault, however the original heretics are. Those who follow Christ are considered part of the Church even if they go to Sunday meetins’ for the food. Those who are Catholic worship the Lord properly. We have the Sacraments.

If you mean to imply that, for example, baptists are part of “The Church”, then you are wrong.

 

[thewanderer]

It’s not impossible for anyone to make a perfect act of contrition. But it is not easy either.
Also, God respects our free will. He gives all men sufficient grace for salvation, but most do not correspond with his graces.

And so you are agreeing with Julia and Adrift that it is possible for anyone to attain salvation. You are also making the qualification that it is very difficult to do so without the Catholic Church. That does not change the fact that it turns out all of you agree on the point that it is technically possible for anyone to attain salvation whether or not they are visible memebers of the Catholic Church while on earth.

I am pointing this out not so much for your sake, but so that Julia and adrift will hopefully see that you do actually agree with them on this point and so what you are arguing about is a combination of semantics and legitimate theological interpretation, **not **actual Church Doctrine. You might object to me and say that they have clearly stated that they believe the doctrrine that there is no salvation outside the Church is wrong, but I am more than convinced that they are not arrguing against the correct understanding of this doctrine oncce all nuances are taken into account, but are rather arguing against some other position which they believe this statement presents and which actually is against Church teaching. This is why I asked them what it is about this statement that they disagree with. I think if we take a step back and find out exactly what it is that they **actually **disagree with we will be able to solve this issue.

 

[MariaG]

If you mean to imply that, for example, baptists are part of “The Church”, then you are wrong.

What about a trinitarian formula just baptized Baptist? Are they part of the church?

 

[wasserfall]

And so you are agreeing with Julia and Adrift that it is possible for anyone to attain salvation. You are also making the qualification that it is very difficult to do so without the Catholic Church. That does not change the fact that it turns out all of you agree on the point that it is technically possible for anyone to attain salvation whether or not they are visible memebers of the Catholic Church while on earth.

I am pointing this out not so much for your sake, but so that Julia and adrift will hopefully see that you do actually agree with them on this point and so what you are arguing about is a combination of semantics and legitimate theological interpretation, **not **actual Church Doctrine. You might object to me and say that they have clearly stated that they believe the doctrrine that there is no salvation outside the Church is wrong, but I am more than convinced that they are not arrguing against the correct understanding of this doctrine oncce all nuances are taken into account, but are rather arguing against some other position which they believe this statement presents and which actually is against Church teaching. This is why I asked them what it is about this statement that they disagree with. I think if we take a step back and find out exactly what it is that they **actually **disagree with we will be able to solve this issue.

I believe this:

1. Those persons who have the possibility of joining the Catholic Church before death, but who fail to do so, will be damned of their own free will, because they refused God’s graces of conversion.
2. Other persons, who have no possibility of joining the Catholic Church before death, can conceivably be saved through perfect charity and contrition, but human nature assures us that the number of such persons is exceedingly small.

This is my understanding of the doctrine of the Church.

 

[wasserfall]

What about a trinitarian formula just baptized Baptist? Are they part of the church?

Back to this huh?

I say No, because baptists baptize adults who already, at the very moment of baptism, have made a conscious decision to reject the Catholic Church.

The baptism is a valid baptism, but the one baptized is placed outside the Church right at the moment of baptism.

(By the way, I have never read anything authoritative on this specific question about baptist baptism. My answer is just my general sense of what is correct based on hearing sermons and general reading on the subjects of baptism, protestants, etc.)

 

[adrift]

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?

I don’t think it is false. I believe that it is being misinterpreted. I believe the dogma is more accurately defined as that we are saved through the Church. All those who attain salvation does so through the Church.

 

[TEPO]

If you mean to imply that, for example, baptists are part of “The Church”, then you are wrong.

A baptist is no more or less part of the Church than a cafeteria Catholic. Neither one being willing to take it to the next level.

So why should we believe that a cafeteria catholic can receive his last rites on his deathbed, and be saved just because a family member called a priest for him?

 

[adrift]

Back to this huh?

I say No, because baptists baptize adults who already, at the very moment of baptism, have made a conscious decision to reject the Catholic Church.

The baptism is a valid baptism, but the one baptized is placed outside the Church right at the moment of baptism.

(By the way, I have never read anything authoritative on this specific question about baptist baptism. My answer is just my general sense of what is correct based on hearing sermons and general reading on the subjects of baptism, protestants, etc.)

How do you know what their conscious decision is? It sounds as if you know the state of their soul which only God can know. You cannot know what a person believes. Do they know that the Catholic Church is the true Church of God? You are claiming to know the inner beliefs of a person. You are not in a position to make such judgements.

 

[thewanderer]

I believe this:

1. Those persons who have the possibility of joining the Catholic Church before death, but who fail to do so, will be damned of their own free will, because they refused God’s graces of conversion.
2. Other persons, who have no possibility of joining the Catholic Church before death, can conceivably be saved through perfect charity and contrition, but human nature assures us that the number of such persons is exceedingly small.

This is my understanding of the doctrine of the Church.

Yes, and the understanding of the number of those saved is not actual church doctrine, but your own interpretation of it, which is fine, it is a subject upon which the church has not spoken. The church does not make an official claim as to the number of people that are outside of the Church that will be saved. And so, the number you believve will be saved has nothing to do with the actual church doctrine which is that it is technically possible for anyone to be saved. Which you have agreed with. Again, I am not pointing this out to argue with you, but to emphasize it as I am fairly confident that this is the main reason that Julia Mae and Adrift have been arguing with you. I am pretty sure they thought that you believed it was not possible for such people to be saved. I mean, I know I can’t ultimately speak for them, so I would appreciate it if they chimed in and helped clear it up, but from my discussions with people it seems that this misconception is the reason why Catholics today do not like the “no salvation outside of the Church” Doctrine. It is usually not due to an essential difference in understanding, but rather to a misunderstanding of what that Doctrine actually means. It is also often accompanied by a difference in opinion as to how often such people attain salvation, but as I said, the number of people who attain salvation through this means is not a matter of doctrine, it is not something on which the Church has spoken and so is a matter upon which disagreement is allowed, so long as all are willing to submit to whatever the Church should say upon said matter if the Church ever speaks out about it.

I do actually have one more question for you though (well… maybe two ). 1. I assume that in 1) you are not excluding the possibility of baptism by fire or explicit baptism by desire in the case where a person who has not actually converted to Catholocism. Correct?
2) Do you accept that your understanding of what is required to qualify for implicit baptism of desire through perfect contrition is also not a church doctrine but is simply a (legitimate) personal understanding of what happens?

 

[reconman]

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

Abandoned, yes… Politics, almost entirely. Taken out of context? There was no context.

I have read the links you posted. They don’t address the question. The papal bull (and that is just what it was, “bull”), was a political power move by Boniface VIII to reign in Phillip the Fair (France), whom Boniface essentially considered a rebel.

As I’ve said, it holds no dogmatic authority with the church, and was quickly forgotten after Boniface died. It was dismissed by the church centuries ago.

Folks here, who mistakenly hold Unam Sanctam as church doctrine, have not read the ccc or don’t believe what it says, refuse to recognize any statement by any subsequent pontiff or theologian and obviously do not, or do not want to, embrace Vatican II as valid church authority.

Instead, they choose to live in an imaginary wonder-world where they, and only they can be saved. it’s mysterious to me that otherwise intelligent and well read catholics will not accept the teaching of the church.

I suspect they have been unknowingly influenced by SSPX theology.

 

[thewanderer]

I don’t think it is false. I believe that it is being misinterpreted. I believe the dogma is more accurately defined as that we are saved through the Church. All those who attain salvation does so through the Church.

Well, can you please explain what aspect of it you believe is being misinterpreted? I believve it will help with this discussion greatly if we can clarfiy exactly what is being claimed by each person.

 

[thewanderer]

Abandoned, yes… Politics, almost entirely. Taken out of context? There was no context.

I have read the links you posted. They don’t address the question. The papal bull (and that is just what it was, “bull”), was a political power move by Boniface VIII to reign in Phillip the Fair (France), whom Boniface essentially considered a rebel.

As I’ve said, it holds no dogmatic authority with the church, and was quickly forgotten after Boniface died. It was dismissed by the church centuries ago.

Folks here, who mistakenly hold Unam Sanctam as church doctrine, have not read the ccc or don’t believe what it says, refuse to recognize any statement by any subsequent pontiff or theologian and obviously do not, or do not want to, embrace Vatican II as valid church authority.

Please do not make this claim until you have addressed my explanation of how “no salvation outside the Church” is not contradictory to the CCC.

 

[adrift]

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.

It is an exageration to claim 2000 years when the Church didn’t exist 2000 years ago. I doubt if you could provide any documents within the first 200 years of the Church that state this. In fact, when referring to the Father’s of the Church they most often are referring to one loosing the faith after accepting it. From a source I have already quoted

many of the Fathers did write about those who were invincibly ignorant of the Gospel. Of these, the Fathers accepted that salvation was open to them, even if in a mysterious way. The Fathers recognized that the natural law of justice and virtue is written on the hearts of all men. Those who respect this law respect the Lawgiver, though they do not know Him. As St. Justin Martyr wrote in the second century:

“We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared Him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes (Jn. 1:9). Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them . . . those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason, whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” (First Apology 46).

So as can be seen your claim that your version of 2000 years is false on a number of fronts.
I do believe that it is through the Church we are saved and that there is no one outside the Church that is saved but my beliefs are in line with the Church not wasserfall.

 

[thewanderer]

It is an exageration to claim 2000 years when the Church didn’t exist 2000 years ago. I doubt if you could provide any documents within the first 200 years of the Church that state this. In fact, when referring to the Father’s of the Church they most often are referring to one loosing the faith after accepting it. From a source I have already quoted

So as can be seen your claim that your version of 2000 years is false on a number of fronts.

Adrift

You are using the phrase

‘salvation was open to them’

as an argument against Wasserfall’s position. Please do not do so. Wasserfall is not claiming (as I have clarified) that it is impossible for such people to be saved. He is saying is that in his opinion (not according to Church Doctrine) it is extremely unlikely that any/many will be. He accepts the idea that it is possible that they be saved and so admits that salvation is ‘open’ to them.

 

[reconman]

Please do not make this claim until you have addressed my explanation of how “no salvation outside the Church” is not contradictory to the CCC.

I’ve already done that half a dozen times. I’m not going to do it anymore. Go read your catechism, and if you don’t understand it, seek help from a priest. You refuse to believe what it clearly says. I can’t help that.