Has Ecumenism changed the meaning of EENS?

[adrift]

Actually, the Church has existed for 2000 years. The Jews who followed the law were redeemed by Jesus before He rose again. Those Jews were not outside the Church… In fact they became the first Catholic Saints.

I am not sure who you are referring to but Pentecost the birth of the Church came after Jesus Ascended into heaven. We do not know for certain the date. We know that Jesus was born about 5 B.C. I think the range is from 5-7 B.C. Jesus died about 30-36 AD. The Church then would not have existed for 2000 years until 2030-36.

So actually the Church has not existed for 2000 years yet.

 

[thewanderer]

Assuming you mean blood instead of fire, and you are speaking of Catecumens, then yes. They are properly considered Catholics, not non-Catholics.

yes, that is what I am refering to! Although I would also add to catecumens those who have had a change of heart and now desire to be baptzed as a Catholic whether or not they have yet spoken to a priest and officially become a catecumen. After all, it is their desire for baptism which saves them, whether or not it is known to others.

It is not “simply” a legitimate personal understanding. 1) It is a Church doctrine, but I don’t claim it is a dogma. There are various levels of authority of doctrines of the Church. 2) It is the same understanding as the great majority of popes, saints, fathers, and doctors of the Church. (Although I should add that the idea of baptism by implicit desire is itself non-dogmatic, so there may well be no baptism of implicit desire at all.)

I guess what I was trying to find out is whether or not you accept that it is possible for Catholics to hold a slightly different interpretation without being heretical. If you do not believe this is possible, I would love to talk to you more about your specific understanding and read the documents etc where it is taught. I think I understand it slightly differently than you do, but from what I have read I do not see my position as contradictory to what the Church teaches. I think getting into this conversation would kind of derail the thread because there is already a pretty intense discussion going on about other matters, but I would honestly be interested in continuing this discussion, so if you want, please feel free to PM me or start a new thread.

 

[thewanderer]

A catholic in sin, is outside of the Mystical Body.

… kind of…

I think there are a **ton **of distinctions that need to be made when trying to talk about who is and who is not a part of the mystical body and what exactly we mean by saying they are a part of it.

Can we try to hold off on a discussion of such until we have cleared up the question that some still seem to have about the doctrine of no salvation outside of the Church? Or maybe start a new thread to talk about it? I just don’t think we’ll be able to give this topic full justice if we try to address it in the middle of this thread.

 

[TEPO]

… kind of…

I think there are a **ton **of distinctions that need to be made when trying to talk about who is and who is not a part of the mystical body and what exactly we mean by saying they are a part of it.

Can we try to hold off on a discussion of such until we have cleared up the question that some still seem to have about the doctrine of no salvation outside of the Church? Or maybe start a new thread to talk about it? I just don’t think we’ll be able to give this topic full justice if we try to address it in the middle of this thread.

Well we really can’t do that since the mystical body and the Church are the same thing. Anyone outside of it is the topic of this thread -isn’t it?

 

[TEPO]

I am not sure who you are referring to but Pentecost the birth of the Church came after Jesus Ascended into heaven. We do not know for certain the date. We know that Jesus was born about 5 B.C. I think the range is from 5-7 B.C. Jesus died about 30-36 AD. The Church then would not have existed for 2000 years until 2030-36.

So actually the Church has not existed for 2000 years yet.

– Okay, I think I can accept that.

 

[thewanderer]

Well we really can’t do that since the mystical body and the Church are the same thing. Anyone outside of it is the topic of this thread -isn’t it?

True

I guess I’m just thinking of some things that St. Thomas says I would love to bring into the discussion of the mystical body of Christ but are rather fine distinctions that would probably turn into full-blown discussions of their own… they would only confuse the issue of whether the doctrine that there is no salvation outside of the church means that some people have no opportunity for salvation. I’m stil convinced that 99% of the time Catholics have a problem with this doctrine is because they misunderstand it to mean that unless one receives sacramental baptism they cannot attain salvation, which is not what this doctrine teaches. For clearing up this particular matter I don’t see why we need to get into all the details of whether someone who has been baptized but is not in the state of Grace is a member of the Church… All that needs to be clarified is that the Catholic Church teaches that one must receive baptism of some kind to attain salvation, reception of baptism nomatter which kind of baptism makes one a member of the Church, therefore there is no salvation outside of the Church. Whether or not all who have entered into the Church through baptsim remain in the church seems to me to be a slightly different, although equally interesting topic.

 

[thewanderer]

We are not in disagreement however I am not sure that wasserfall is agreement.

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.

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.

Look at the bolded parts of Wasserfall’s posts. Understand that he is coming at this from the point of view that very very few if any are actually saved. But his posts themselves indicate that he is willing to accept the possibility of salvation.

 

[TEPO]

True

I guess I’m just thinking of some things that St. Thomas says I would love to bring into the discussion of the mystical body of Christ but are rather fine distinctions that would probably turn into full-blown discussions of their own… they would only confuse the issue of whether the doctrine that there is no salvation outside of the church means that some people have no opportunity for salvation. I’m stil convinced that 99% of the time Catholics have a problem with this doctrine is because they misunderstand it to mean that unless one receives sacramental baptism they cannot attain salvation, which is not what this doctrine teaches. For clearing up this particular matter I don’t see why we need to get into all the details of whether someone who has been baptized but is not in the state of Grace is a member of the Church… All that needs to be clarified is that the Catholic Church teaches that one must receive baptism of some kind to attain salvation, reception of baptism nomatter which kind of baptism makes one a member of the Church, therefore there is no salvation outside of the Church. Whether or not all who have entered into the Church through baptsim remain in the church seems to me to be a slightly different, although equally interesting topic.

Well, I suppose you might be right… But I’d like to recall one fact which is that whether we are post or Pre Vatican two “type” Catholics, we all have always believed that Jesus did redeem the souls of non-Baptized Jews from purgatory -and He sent them to heaven. These Jews could have only been baptized through baptism of desire or blood.

This has been a catholic teaching since day one.

 

[thewanderer]

Well, I suppose you might be right… But I’d like to recall one fact which is that whether we are post or Pre Vatican two “type” Catholics, we all have always believed that Jesus did redeem the souls of non-Baptized Jews from purgatory -and He sent them to heaven. These Jews could have only been baptized through baptism of desire or blood.

This has been a catholic teaching since day one.

agreed!

but hey, if we can get everyone to realize that “No Salvation Outside the Church” does not contradict CCC, we can always move on and talk about it afterwards!

 

[sdegutis]

Maybe he’s happy being a religious Jew.

You might want to read up on what the Church teaches about happiness, especially St. Thomas Aquinas. Happiness comes from knowing God, nobody can be happy without knowing God, and the more fully we know the Truth about God, the happier we will be, and the fullness of Truth is within the Catholic Church, and thus either he is truly happy in which case he would have no objection to joining the Catholic Church upon invitation, or he is not really happy, which would put his motive for refusal at something else.

 

[sdegutis]

I think to get at the heart of the issue, it’s more beneficial to approach this from a different angle.

To be honest, I’ll admit that I have a hard time with accepting the sweepingly broad interpretation of “salvation outside the Church” and this is mostly because it defies common sense. Because if Jesus Christ came to earth as the only way of our salvation, and instituted the Sacraments and His Church for the specific intention of our salvation, then these must be the normal means of salvation for all human beings, “whether Jew or Greek”.

When saying “a moral and devout Jew can go to Heaven” it’s implied that he is a Jew because he refuses to accept an important truth, namely that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. It’s not much different than saying “a moral and upright atheist can go to Heaven” because in both cases, the person has rejected some truth that God has revealed to them, although the latter has rejected more truths.

And if the Jew and the atheist could get to Heaven simply by living a moral and upright life, then what use are our Sacraments? Why is there even a Catholic Church?

It’s another story altogether to say that a moral and upright Jew who never ever heard of Jesus Christ or the Catholic Church might have salvation somehow. If their ignorance of the Church was truly invincible, it doesn’t seem just that God wouldn’t give them a chance. But if there’s a Jew who lives next door to a Catholic Church and never joins it, it seems extremely improbable that this Jew has that invincible ignorance. One has to wonder what was going on in the mind of that Jew when he was offered and rejected entrance into God’s Church.

Or I can take an even better example from my own idiotic past. I was an atheist, and I claimed that I was one simply because of logic and reason and knowledge, which led me to conclude that the Catholic religion was false. However, after becoming a Catholic and examining my old reasoning, I saw that many of my arguments were excessively fallacious and this was often caused by either emotional rejections of God’s inspirations in my heart or some other mental rejection of Truth. How could I have been saved even if I lived a “moral and upright life” if these were my innermost rejections of God, based on hardness of heart and stubbornness and imagined self-sufficiency?

 

[TrueLight]

I think to get at the heart of the issue, it’s more beneficial to approach this from a different angle.

To be honest, I’ll admit that I have a hard time with accepting the sweepingly broad interpretation of “salvation outside the Church” and this is mostly because it defies common sense. Because if Jesus Christ came to earth as the only way of our salvation, and instituted the Sacraments and His Church for the specific intention of our salvation, then these must be the normal means of salvation for all human beings, “whether Jew or Greek”.

When saying “a moral and devout Jew can go to Heaven” it’s implied that he is a Jew because he refuses to accept an important truth, namely that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. It’s not much different than saying “a moral and upright atheist can go to Heaven” because in both cases, the person has rejected some truth that God has revealed to them, although the latter has rejected more truths.

And if the Jew and the atheist could get to Heaven simply by living a moral and upright life, then what use are our Sacraments? Why is there even a Catholic Church?

It’s another story altogether to say that a moral and upright Jew who never ever heard of Jesus Christ or the Catholic Church might have salvation somehow. If their ignorance of the Church was truly invincible, it doesn’t seem just that God wouldn’t give them a chance. But if there’s a Jew who lives next door to a Catholic Church and never joins it, it seems extremely improbable that this Jew has that invincible ignorance. One has to wonder what was going on in the mind of that Jew when he was offered and rejected entrance into God’s Church.

Or I can take an even better example from my own idiotic past. I was an atheist, and I claimed that I was one simply because of logic and reason and knowledge, which led me to conclude that the Catholic religion was false. However, after becoming a Catholic and examining my old reasoning, I saw that many of my arguments were excessively fallacious and this was often caused by either emotional rejections of God’s inspirations in my heart or some other mental rejection of Truth. How could I have been saved even if I lived a “moral and upright life” if these were my innermost rejections of God, based on hardness of heart and stubbornness and imagined self-sufficiency?

I don’t often agree with you, but this is a good post.

What use are our sacraments if just being a moral, good person means you get to go to heaven.?

The key is what is invincible ignorance? In this day and age, most people in technological societies know about Christianity or the Catholic Church. At the same time, it is just as hard for the Atheist to believe in a God who incarnated, died on a cross , rose again and ascended into heaven, as it is for a Christian to suddenly believe in Shiva.

God is a Holy God and he cannot abide sin. Only through the saving power of Christ do we even have a chance. Catholics have the truth. If the truth is relative, it really would be a lot easier to belong to one of the more easy-going Protestant denominations.

Also, if Catholics have the truth and Protestants have a less fuller truth, but it is enough than we shouldn’t pray for their conversion. They are fine where they are. Is that current Church teaching?

 

[Julia_Mae]

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.

Just rude. So you have no answer to the question, then.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Adrift

You are using the phrase

‘salvation was open to them’

as an argument against Wasserfall’s position. Please do not do so…

Did someone appoint you the debate moderator while I was sleeping? How about you just speak for yourself.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The litmus test for dogma is: if it seems to contradict Jesus, it’s wrong.

Matthew 19:

16Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?" He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good.* If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18
He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; 19 honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

That’s it. Jesus is done speaking, no other thing is required. It is the questioner who thinks there must be more to it than that. Instead of taking Jesus at His Word, he wants more.

20 The young man said to him, “All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Jesus didn’t say anything about following Him or being perfect in His first answer.

In the parable of the lost sheep, the shepherd* leaves the flock* to go and seek out the one who strayed. He does this because the Father wants all to be saved.

When Jesus was asked about someone going around preaching in His name but not being part of the group that followed Jesus around, what did Jesus say? That he should be stopped or that the disciples should go compel him to join them? No, He said to let the man alone because those who are not against us are for us.

Did Jesus say there is only one room in His Father’s house? Nope. He said many. Many for the many kinds of us.

What did Jesus say would happen when He is raised up? He will call EVERYONE to Himself. I believe Him.

I have no idea why anyone would want to belong to some exclusive little group of people who want to be the only ones in Heaven. Not when Jesus so clearly said He wants all to be one. I don’t know who anyone is listening to that they reject what the Church teaches us about the possibility of salvation for all. But Jesus doesn’t want that. He’s God. He gets to have what He wants.

That’s my God. The One from whom an ocean of mercy pours out for all. The One Who will judge. The One Whose thoughts none of us can begin to fathom. The One Who loves us. No matter what, in Time and out.

I believe my Church.

 

[sdegutis]

I think what I last posted in here addresses your points well. Have you read it?

 

[Melchior_1]

Maybe I’m approaching this too simply, but I don’t get what the hoopla in this thread is all about. I think some are getting caught up on semantics or are painting an incomplete picture.

1. Salvation is found within the Catholic Church.
2. Those who are not Catholic do have a chance for salvation. The odds are not in their favor due to a lack of grace being received (grace received via the Sacraments), but there is still a chance.
3. Those outside of the Church who do obtain salvation actually join the Church at the moment of their death(s) due to the Baptism of Blood and/or Desire.

Even His Grace Marcel Lefebvre thought this, or at least at one point wrote about it (just saw it in another thread).

Some focus on #1, some on #2 or #3. But we need to look at all three points to see the big picture.

The “question” at this point is how many people at their time of death are truly in a disposition to make the sincere choice “yeah Jesus, lets do the Catholic thing”. THe answer? God only knows.

 

[thewanderer]

Did someone appoint you the debate moderator while I was sleeping? How about you just speak for yourself.

If you actually read my post I gave a reason for what I said beyond “i want to take control of this conversation so i’m going to arbitrarily make up rules for other people to follow. The reason being that wasserfall doesn’t disagree with said statement. I’m sorry that my particular phrasing offended you. I could have phrased it as " this argument makes no sense because wasserfall isn’t saying what you think he is”. I really don’t see what right you have to be offended by the way I phrased my response to anoher poster which is making a valid point. If you are offende that I am trying to explain that there is most likely a misunderstanding going on here and so trying to get people to be more clear about a few things they are saying so that you don’t all endlessly waste time and energy over a non-existant disagreement then I really don’t know what to say to you. I just tend to assume that people prefer not to waste time on pointless arguments.

 

[thewanderer]

Maybe I’m approaching this too simply, but I don’t get what the hoopla in this thread is all about. I think some are getting caught up on semantics or are painting an incomplete picture.

1. Salvation is found within the Catholic Church.
2. Those who are not Catholic do have a chance for salvation. The odds are not in their favor due to a lack of grace being received (grace received via the Sacraments), but there is still a chance.
3. Those outside of the Church who do obtain salvation actually join the Church at the moment of their death(s) due to the Baptism of Blood and/or Desire.

Even His Grace Marcel Lefebvre thought this, or at least at one point wrote about it (just saw it in another thread).

Some focus on #1, some on #2 or #3. But we need to look at all three points to see the big picture.

The “question” at this point is how many people at their time of death are truly in a disposition to make the sincere choice “yeah Jesus, lets do the Catholic thing”. THe answer? God only knows.

 

[clem456]

The litmus test for dogma is: if it seems to contradict Jesus, it’s wrong.

Matthew 19:

That’s it. Jesus is done speaking, no other thing is required. It is the questioner who thinks there must be more to it than that. Instead of taking Jesus at His Word, he wants more.

Jesus didn’t say anything about following Him or being perfect in His first answer.

Pope JP2 address this short passage in great detail in Veritatis Splendor. The encyclical is a staunch defense of objective truth and also a challenge to move beyond legalism.
The key passage he address is “only God is good”. God is the only source of objective moral truth and of salvation, through His Church.
The problem we have here, is that people believe as the rich young man in Matthew does, that justification and salvation spring solely from satisfying the legal demands. That’s partial truth, which is why Our Lord gives him the hard truth in the next verse. Jesus mecifully rebukes his sense of self satisfaction and self justification. Staisfying the Church’s precepts are the absolute minimum to attain salvation. Minimalism.