How should Catholics view other Christian Traditions

[bo_leggs]

I find this discussion interesting because I am in a discernment group with the local Dominican sisters. Recently one in the group made a comment about all “denominations” being equal. I stated that one church is not as good as the Catholic Church because the fullness of truth is found only in the Catholic Church. One of the sisters stated that that isn’t what Vatican II teaches. I was shocked, but replied that having read the documents I know that it does not teach one church as good as another because it emphasizes that the fullness of truth is found only in the Catholic Church. While all Protestant churches or denominations each has elements of the truth, they do not have the fullness of truth that the Catholic Church holds. Another sister agreed with the other sister that Vatican II teaches that all churches are equal and provide a path to salvation. When I got home I reread Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio and other sections dealing with ecumenism and came away with the same conclusion.

Now I need some advice on whether I should bring this up again or let it drop. Complicating things is that there is one Protestant in the group who has been in other study programs the sisters offer. One other difficulty I’m having is the lack of habits for the sisters. I almost didn’t join the discernment group for that reason. I was considering a Franciscan group, but it is an hour and a half drive one way vs a half an hour drive to the Dominican group. It’s a congenial group, but . . . Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

[Della]

Such a didactic conclusion is opposed to the teaching of the Church:
“In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.

“**It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.**9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]
Notes:
[9] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 11.3: AAS 87 [1995-II] 928.
[10] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.2.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

That the Catholic Church can be present and operative in other ecclesial communities is the reality.

No, what I wrote and quoted from the CCC is perfectly in line with the Church’s teaching. I nowhere claimed that Protestants should not be encouraged to be in full communion with the Church. As a convert myself I understand the difference quite well. But, it is wrong to say that baptized Christians are completely outside the Church. They are not. They are imperfectly joined to the Church, as the CCC clearly states.

It is only because of the graces given through Christ’s one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church that any other Christian body has any of the truth/God’s graces, although many distort the truth to their own ends, sad to say, and most without knowing it.

It is clear the Church views baptized Christians not in full communion with her as Christians because when she welcomes them into full communion with her they are candidates not catechumens, as are the unbaptized. The Church recognizes baptism as the initiation into the life of Christ and his Church, but it would be best if they were in full communion with her. I was a candidate because I was baptized in an Episcopal Church when I was received. I do know the difference and believe it.

 

[bmonk]

Even those who are not Catholic are still in an imperfect communion with the One Church. So we should not be surprised to see them still doing much good. They’ve got a lot right even if they have some of it wrong.

You might read the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism. That pretty much sums up how the Catholic Church views Herself in relation to other ecclesial communities.

Besides that text, Lumen Gentium (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) paragraph 15, also speaks of those who are Christian but not Catholic.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I find this discussion interesting because I am in a discernment group with the local Dominican sisters. Recently one in the group made a comment about all “denominations” being equal. I stated that one church is not as good as the Catholic Church because the fullness of truth is found only in the Catholic Church. One of the sisters stated that that isn’t what Vatican II teaches. I was shocked, but replied that having read the documents I know that it does not teach one church as good as another because it emphasizes that the fullness of truth is found only in the Catholic Church. While all Protestant churches or denominations each has elements of the truth, they do not have the fullness of truth that the Catholic Church holds. Another sister agreed with the other sister that Vatican II teaches that all churches are equal and provide a path to salvation. When I got home I reread Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio and other sections dealing with ecumenism and came away with the same conclusion.

Now I need some advice on whether I should bring this up again or let it drop. Complicating things is that there is one Protestant in the group who has been in other study programs the sisters offer. One other difficulty I’m having is the lack of habits for the sisters. I almost didn’t join the discernment group for that reason. I was considering a Franciscan group, but it is an hour and a half drive one way vs a half an hour drive to the Dominican group. It’s a congenial group, but . . . Any suggestions would be appreciated.

I think you know the answer to your question. The discussion showed that these women are under the influence of a very grievous error. This one just happened to come up. There may be many other falsehoods and heresies that they believe that you haven’t yet found out about. Think twice before you sign your life away to these people.

 

[spina1953]

I find this discussion interesting because I am in a discernment group with the local Dominican sisters. Recently one in the group made a comment about all “denominations” being equal. I stated that one church is not as good as the Catholic Church because the fullness of truth is found only in the Catholic Church. One of the sisters stated that that isn’t what Vatican II teaches. I was shocked, but replied that having read the documents I know that it does not teach one church as good as another because it emphasizes that the fullness of truth is found only in the Catholic Church. While all Protestant churches or denominations each has elements of the truth, they do not have the fullness of truth that the Catholic Church holds. Another sister agreed with the other sister that Vatican II teaches that all churches are equal and provide a path to salvation. When I got home I reread Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio and other sections dealing with ecumenism and came away with the same conclusion.

Now I need some advice on whether I should bring this up again or let it drop. Complicating things is that there is one Protestant in the group who has been in other study programs the sisters offer. One other difficulty I’m having is the lack of habits for the sisters. I almost didn’t join the discernment group for that reason. I was considering a Franciscan group, but it is an hour and a half drive one way vs a half an hour drive to the Dominican group. It’s a congenial group, but . . . Any suggestions would be appreciated.

I think it would be better if you did not bring it again with the sisters. However, they got it wrong as I read Lumen as part of My ocds community formaation class. Also while Unitatis Redentegatio explains about our seperated breathren, it no where says that the denommonations are equal, only that they share some of the Catholic beliefs, but not all. Lumen gentium also does not speak of any euality of all the denommonations being the same or equal. it speaks of the Catholic Church as a whole and not that of the denommonations of our seperaled breathren, those Churches not in union with Rome are the same or equal. So your first thouht about not all Churches (seperated frm Rome are equal or the same. You are correct in saying that our seperated breathren denommonations do not have the fullness of faith as the Catholic Church does. They share only some of the faith. Hope that helps.

 

[Heart_Foam]

They are outside the Catholic Church. They are not in the Church.

I can think back to my undergrad philosophy on the nature of the mind and the brain, and the question of how everything relates is similar here in how Catholics define the Church. I think the necessary consequence of Catholic claims stemming from Matt 16:18 is that the earthly, visible, organised church centered in Rome is the very same thing as the Church to which Jesus Christ promised salvation, who are called the heirs of eternal life, the children of God, the Body of Christ, etc. The same thing. A one-to-one identity. Synonymous. Is that fair?

And it follows from this view that all who are outside the visible, external organised RCC, the Body of Christ, are therefore not saved, are *not *children of God, not the heirs of eternal life: extra ecclesiam nulla salus. To say that someone can be imperfectly joined, or partially separated, or in but not really in, or any relationship to Rome with another form of tenuous preposition, is to redefine the Church to which salvation is promised in a more abstract and more Protestant way: as a spiritual body of all believers. But the Catholic definition doesn’t allow this because then the definition of the RCC and the Church of Christ comes apart. And there are some massive theological problems with the Catholic definition of the Church, such as whether the wicked and unbelieving within the RCC are saved. I’m really, genuinely asking out of curiosity, does any Catholic conceive of the true Church of Christ, the heirs of salvation, as a subset of the RCC to deal with the problem of unbelievers?

The RCC seems to want to take a more ecumenical line these days, but really the doctrine of the Church doesn’t allow it. It should consider even the nicest, most godly Protestants who have personal faith in Christ as unsaved because they, patently, obviously, are not in the RCC. Any slack in the rule - for example believing that baptism attaches that person to the Church, although in no way, shape, or form is the person actually within the visible RCC - means that the Church Jesus founded on Peter, even if that were true, was not an earthly visible hierarchical organization.

 

[Heart_Foam]

I think it would be better if you did not bring it again with the sisters. However, they got it wrong as I read Lumen as part of My ocds community formation class. Also while Unitatis Redintegratio explains about our separated brethren, it no where says that the denominations are equal, only that they share some of the Catholic beliefs, but not all. Lumen Gentium also does not speak of any equality of all the denominations being the same or equal. it speaks of the Catholic Church as a whole and not that of the denominations of our separated brethren, those Churches not in union with Rome are the same or equal. So your first thought about not all Churches (separated from Rome are equal or the same. You are correct in saying that our separated brethren denominations do not have the fullness of faith as the Catholic Church does. They share only some of the faith. Hope that helps.

“They got it wrong” … “it nowhere says” … “you are correct”.

I must speak plainly: this, above, is private judgement. And I find it interesting that the Interpreter needs interpreting. Let no Catholic criticize “separated brethren” for a perceived lack of authority and lack of certainty, if in reality Catholics cannot agree on what official documents say. Let’s play fair, that is all.

 

[Della]

The Catholic Church has always taught that salvation is possible for those outside the visible Church. Indeed, any cleric who publicly taught/teaches otherwise was/is censured and corrected. In our own day there is a movement of separated Catholics who claim just what you do, but they have been excommunicated. You may think that certain things can only be one way, but Catholics are not “either/or” in a lot of things. We think more along the lines of “both/and.”

Individual Catholics may debate Church documents all they please, but it is the Magisterium that makes final declarations of faith and morals, not individual Catholics. Considering that every head has it’s own way of understanding everything outside it, it is remarkable how much sincere Catholics understand things the same way. It’s been remarked often on CAF how we seem to echo each other, as we copied from one another.

 

[spina1953]

“They got it wrong” … “it nowhere says” … “you are correct”.

I must speak plainly: this, above, is private judgement. And I find it interesting that the Interpreter needs interpreting. Let no Catholic criticize “separated brethren” for a perceived lack of authority and lack of certainty, if in reality Catholics cannot agree on what official documents say. Let’s play fair, that is all.

I was not interperting, it was my understanding of the documents I read and I know that my understanding is correct as The priest who was formating me was very knowledgable about Church documents.

 

[steve_b]

I can think back to my undergrad philosophy on the nature of the mind and the brain, and the question of how everything relates is similar here in how Catholics define the Church. I think the necessary consequence of Catholic claims stemming from Matt 16:18 is that the earthly, visible, organised church centered in Rome is the very same thing as the Church to which Jesus Christ promised salvation, who are called the heirs of eternal life, the children of God, the Body of Christ, etc. The same thing. A one-to-one identity. Synonymous. Is that fair?

Sure. And it is also necessary to point out, the one who Jesus was talking to in Mt 16:18… was Peter. Rome happens to be Peter’s see

offices that apostles held were passed on in succession when an apostle died (Acts 1:20) including Peter’s office
H:

And it follows from this view that all who are outside the visible, external organised RCC, the Body of Christ, are therefore not saved, are *not *children of God, not the heirs of eternal life: extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Unity like division is a choice. Otherwise Jesus wouldn’t have prayed the following prayer
John 17:20-23 .
What happens if people choose division from the Catholic Church?
Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 note: the consequences for dissension / division is Gal 5:21. Paul wrote that under the influence of the HS. And the HS received it from Jesus. John 16:12-15 . iow, Jesus is telling us in advance through the HS, through Paul, don’t divide from my Church. The consequence for the soul is horrible… true?
H:

To say that someone can be imperfectly joined, or partially separated, or in but not really in, or any relationship to Rome with another form of tenuous preposition, is to redefine the Church to which salvation is promised in a more abstract and more Protestant way: as a spiritual body of all believers.

Consider Rom 16:17-20 & Gal 5:19-21 above.

Is Paul warning baptised individuals? Yes. If a soul leaves (dissents from or divides from) the Catholic Church and doesn’t return, Gal 5:21 it’s clear about the consequences. objectively speaking, from this then, one must be in the Church to gain salvation AND remain there…agreed?

iow, one who is baptised outside the Catholic Church is obliged to formally enter the Catholic Church. They are baptised with a Catholic sacrament, meant to bring a soul into the Catholic Church and remain in the Catholic Church. The contradiction is, they are baptised in a system that has in it’s DNA, division from the Catholic Church… and one sees the consequences of that in the passages above…even among the baptised… agreed?
H:

But the Catholic definition doesn’t allow this because then the definition of the RCC and the Church of Christ comes apart. And there are some massive theological problems with the Catholic definition of the Church, such as whether the wicked and unbelieving within the RCC are saved. I’m really, genuinely asking out of curiosity, does any Catholic conceive of the true Church of Christ, the heirs of salvation, as a subset of the RCC to deal with the problem of unbelievers?

One is not saved in the Catholic Church regardless of their behavior.
H:

The RCC seems to want to take a more ecumenical line these days, but really the doctrine of the Church doesn’t allow it.

It’s true doctrines remain. they don’t appear one day then poof disappear the next day.
H:

It should consider even the nicest, most godly Protestants who have personal faith in Christ as unsaved because they, patently, obviously, are not in the RCC. Any slack in the rule - for example believing that baptism attaches that person to the Church, although in no way, shape, or form is the person actually within the visible RCC - means that the Church Jesus founded on Peter, even if that were true, was not an earthly visible hierarchical organization.

Who is Catholic CCC 837

For consideration, This is how obedient Jesus is to His Father. Aren’t we in return to obey Jesus in whatever He says with the same fervor?

Jn 5:19
the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Jn 6:
38* For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;

Jn 8:29
The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."

Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Jn 14:31
I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

 

[spina1953]

The Catholic Church has always taught that salvation is possible for those outside the visible Church. Indeed, any cleric who publicly taught/teaches otherwise was/is censured and corrected. In our own day there is a movement of separated Catholics who claim just what you do, but they have been excommunicated. You may think that certain things can only be one way, but Catholics are not “either/or” in a lot of things. We think more along the lines of “both/and.”

Individual Catholics may debate Church documents all they please, but it is the Magisterium that makes final declarations of faith and morals, not individual Catholics. Considering that every head has it’s own way of understanding everything outside it, it is remarkable how much sincere Catholics understand things the same way. It’s been remarked often on CAF how we seem to echo each other, as we copied from one another.

I agree with your statement!!!

 

[Heart_Foam]

Sure. And it is also necessary to point out, the one who Jesus was talking to in Mt 16:18… was Peter. Rome happens to be Peter’s see

Here you define the Church of Christ as synonymous with the RCC.
steve b:

One is not saved in the Catholic Church regardless of their behavior.

Here, those definitions come apart. Catholics cannot adhere to their own doctrine. I won’t let you avail yourself of a Protestant definition of the Church to meet an emergency.

 

[Heart_Foam]

Delal:

The Catholic Church has always taught that salvation is possible for those outside the visible Church.

Just asserting that wont make it true.
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/fenteens.htm

Each of these documents presents three distinct statements as truths actually revealed by God, and consequently as doctrines which men are obliged to accept with the assent of divine faith itself. By immediate and necessary implication, they condemn as heretical the teachings contradictory to these three dogmas of the Catholic faith. They assert that:

(1) It is a divinely revealed truth that there is only one true ecclesia or Church of God

(2) It is a divinely revealed truth that this one true ecclesia is the Roman Catholic Church, the social unit properly termed “the universal Church of the faithful.”

(3) No one at all, according to God’s own revelation, can be saved if, at the moment of his death, he is “outside” this society

As a result, according to the teaching of these documents, it would be heretical to imagine that there is more than one social unit in this world that can be designated as God’s true ecclesia, that the Roman Catholic Church is not this true* ecclesia*, or that any person could attain to salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church.

At the end:

Thus, according to the infallibly true teaching of this section of the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council, we may draw the following conclusions:

(1) At the moment of death a man must be in some way “within” the Catholic Church (either as a member or as one who desires and prays to enter it) if he is to attain to eternal salvation.

(2) There is absolutely no exception to this rule. Otherwise the statement that “on one at all (nullus omnino)” is saved outside of the one universal Church of the faithful would not be true. And that statement is true. It is an infallible dogmatic pronouncement of an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.

(3) Any attempt to explain the Church’s necessity for salvation by claiming that it is only the “ordinary” means, or by imagining that it is requisite only for those who are aware of its dignity and position, is completely false and unacceptable.

This is clearly saying there is a 1-to-1 identity between the RCC and the Church of God, and that membership within that society is crucial for salvation. The idea of separated brethren was foreign to the medieval RCC.

 

[steve_b]

Here you define the Church of Christ as synonymous with the RCC.

The official name of the Church is the Catholic Church. “Roman” or / Latin, is a rite within the Catholic Church. It so happens that the Roman rite is ~98% of the total number of Catholics in the world. The other rites make up the remainder ~2%. All rites within the Catholic Church are 100% Catholic. Because they are in complete union with the successor to Peter the pope in Rome.

The Catechism for the Church is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
H:

Here, those definitions come apart. Catholics cannot adhere to their own doctrine. I won’t let you avail yourself of a Protestant definition of the Church to meet an emergency.

I won’t let you get away without explaining that.

What I said was “One is not saved in the Catholic Church regardless of their behavior”.

How did you arrive at your completely erroneous conclusion from what I said?

 

[Heart_Foam]

I won’t let you get away without explaining that.

What I said was “One is not saved in the Catholic Church regardless of their behavior”.

How did you arrive at your completely erroneous conclusion from what I said?

Nothing erroneous at all. What you said implies that there is a conceptual difference between the set of people who are in the visible Catholic church and the set of people who will be saved. There may be overlap, but they are not synonymous. But if the 4th Lateran Council is to be taken seriously, then the Church for which Christ died is equal to the visible Church founded on Peter, based in Rome. It follows then, that all who are in this Church of Christ, the Body of Christ, are promised salvation.

One’s behaviour, or even one’s faith, then is not the criterion by which God judges you to be part of His Church, because simple membership in the external society - the Catholic church - and following the club rules makes one part of Christ’s Church, a child of God, and heir to eternal life. If that is unpalatable (and it is), and you say that the wicked and unbelieving in the Catholic church are actually *not *going to be saved (and you do), then you have to radically alter your definition of the Church for which Christ died and to whom the promise of salvation is made. In fact, you will have to define the Church as the Bible does and as Protestants do: as a spiritual body of all believers, distinct from any earthly visible organisation.

 

[Della]

Just asserting that wont make it true.
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/fenteens.htm

Each of these documents presents three distinct statements as truths actually revealed by God, and consequently as doctrines which men are obliged to accept with the assent of divine faith itself. By immediate and necessary implication, they condemn as heretical the teachings contradictory to these three dogmas of the Catholic faith. They assert that:

(1) It is a divinely revealed truth that there is only one true ecclesia or Church of God

(2) It is a divinely revealed truth that this one true ecclesia is the Roman Catholic Church, the social unit properly termed “the universal Church of the faithful.”

(3) No one at all, according to God’s own revelation, can be saved if, at the moment of his death, he is “outside” this society

As a result, according to the teaching of these documents, it would be heretical to imagine that there is more than one social unit in this world that can be designated as God’s true ecclesia, that the Roman Catholic Church is not this true* ecclesia*, or that any person could attain to salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church.

At the end:

Thus, according to the infallibly true teaching of this section of the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council, we may draw the following conclusions:

(1) At the moment of death a man must be in some way “within” the Catholic Church (either as a member or as one who desires and prays to enter it) if he is to attain to eternal salvation.

(2) There is absolutely no exception to this rule. Otherwise the statement that "on one at all (nullus omnino)" is saved outside of the one universal Church of the faithful would not be true. And that statement is true. It is an infallible dogmatic pronouncement of an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.

(3) Any attempt to explain the Church’s necessity for salvation by claiming that it is only the “ordinary” means, or by imagining that it is requisite only for those who are aware of its dignity and position, is completely false and unacceptable.

This is clearly saying there is a 1-to-1 identity between the RCC and the Church of God, and that membership within that society is crucial for salvation. The idea of separated brethren was foreign to the medieval RCC.

I’ve already posted what the Church teaches regarding our Protestant brethren. You should re-read it.

The definition of those who are in union with Christ’s Church is not mere visible/physical membership. Baptism, be it by water, or of desire, or of blood (martyrdom) joins one to the Church, thus even non-Christians may be saved. If you apply that definition of Church to the statements you cited, it all falls into place.

What the Church was emphasizing in medieval times was that those who deliberately separated themselves through heresy are excommunicated and so in danger of hell upon death. That is what is called **formal **heresy. Modern Protestants, even I would dare to say most former Catholics, don’t fall into that category because they have not rejected the Church with full knowledge, will, and consent. They are called material heretics, which is not mortal sin. Thus it can be stated that by reason of their baptism they are still members of Christ’s Church.

It really doesn’t impress knowledgeable Catholics that you cite our documents out of context–not only textual context but of their intent and those to whom they were addressed. We know what our own documents mean, even if you don’t. If you are deliberately using them to try to win points, even though you know better–which I hope not, that would be sinful–so you should be aware of that before cherry-picking Catholic documents.

 

[spina1953]

“One is not saved in the Catholic Church regardless of their behavior” makes sense to me as there is the promise of salvation, not that one is actualy saved, that is the decsion of God who He chooses to be in heaven. What I think was meant (correct me if I am wrong) is that the Catholic Church has the means by which one might have salvation. Just because one is Catholic is no garrentee of salvation only the promise that salvation might be had.

 

[spina1953]

I’ve already posted what the Church teaches regarding our Protestant brethren. You should re-read it.

The definition of those who are in union with Christ’s Church is not mere visible/physical membership. Baptism, be it by water, or of desire, or of blood (martyrdom) joins one to the Church, thus even non-Christians may be saved. If you apply that definition of Church to the statements you cited, it all falls into place.

What the Church was emphasizing in medieval times was that those who deliberately separated themselves through heresy are excommunicated and so in danger of hell upon death. That is what is called **formal **heresy. Modern Protestants, even I would dare to say most former Catholics, don’t fall into that category because they have not rejected the Church with full knowledge, will, and consent. They are called material heretics, which is not mortal sin. Thus it can be stated that by reason of their baptism they are still members of Christ’s Church.

It really doesn’t impress knowledgeable Catholics that you cite our documents out of context–not only textual context but of their intent and those to whom they were addressed. We know what our own documents mean, even if you don’t. If you are deliberately using them to try to win points, even though you know better–which I hope not, that would be sinful–so you should be aware of that before cherry-picking Catholic documents.

Good agrument!!! I have to agree with your thnking as it is right on good fo you!!

 

[Abu]

Heart Foam #33
This is clearly saying there is a 1-to-1 identity between the RCC and the Church of God, and that membership within that society is crucial for salvation. The idea of separated brethren was foreign to the medieval RCC.

False.

The attempt to use Msgr Fenton’s comments in 1958 to refute the teaching of the Popes is typical of those who don’t know what they’re talking about.

Pope Clement (circa A.D. 95) affirmed that “those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God." Christ’s Church knew from the beginning that non-Catholics could be saved. Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145].

The Council of Trent (1554-1563) teaches that justification from original sin is not possible “without the washing unto regeneration or the desire for the same."

According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying power. Luke 7, 47: “Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much.” John 14, 21: " He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: l and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 23, 43 • “This, day thou shalt be with me in Paradise."
ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/BAPTISM.TXT

This poster is unconcerned with the reality of truth, already shown in post #20:
“It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]
Notes:
[9] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 11.3: AAS 87 [1995-II] 928.
[10] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.2.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”[12].
Note:
[12] Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.4.

The Church teaches that the “necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation” = no salvation without the Catholic Church; the doctrinal meaning of the phrase, means that whether they know it or not, salvation for anyone can come only through Christ’s Church. Christ offers the actual graces which can enable them to follow the natural moral law, and come home if they have the opportunity to so do.

 

[spina1953]

False.

The attempt to use Msgr Fenton’s comments in 1958 to refute the teaching of the Popes is typical of those who don’t know what they’re talking about.

Pope Clement (circa A.D. 95) affirmed that “those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God." Christ’s Church knew from the beginning that non-Catholics could be saved. Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145].

The Council of Trent (1554-1563) teaches that justification from original sin is not possible “without the washing unto regeneration or the desire for the same."

According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying power. Luke 7, 47: “Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much.” John 14, 21: " He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: l and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 23, 43 • “This, day thou shalt be with me in Paradise."
ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/BAPTISM.TXT

This poster is unconcerned with the reality of truth, already shown in post #20:
“It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]
Notes:
[9] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 11.3: AAS 87 [1995-II] 928.
[10] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.2.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”[12].
Note:
[12] Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.4.

The Church teaches that the “necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation” = no salvation without the Catholic Church; the doctrinal meaning of the phrase, means that whether they know it or not, salvation for anyone can come only through Christ’s Church. Christ offers the actual graces which can enable them to follow the natural moral law, and come home if they have the opportunity to so do.

Sound thinking! great work!