G
- Status
T
TOME
Guest
There is no salvation outside of the Church (of Christ), however, the Catholic Church is not The Church.
U
una_fides
Guest
You did not direct the question to me, but I think it’s funny that you ask that question when Napad did not provide her (assuming female gender) interpretation of any of those documents, but rather just posted what some previous popes have said on the matter. Would you say that those popes held to the Feeneyite position? Or would you instead try to understand and interpret them according to a broader context of other papal writings? Perhaps Napad’s posting them might demonstrate the slant she is trying to take, but we cannot presume her to be a Feeneyite any more than the popes who wrote those statements. It is my understanding that these three statements are reiterating the necessity of being Catholic; however, do they rule out the possibility of one who is invincibly ignorant being able to possibly be saved? Couldn’t we interpret them either way? So we could say that God does not bestow eternal rewards upon the members of false religions, unless that member is invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith. I think if you understand that these popes likely thought it very unlikely for someone in that state to meet the criteria of invincible ignorance and then to cooperate with God’s grace enough to be saved, that they did not expound further because they did not see the need to do so.
EDIT: Looking back at post 148, it does appear Napad is proposing Feenyism. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4704058&postcount=148
N
napad
Guest
We see from the above popes that Outside means Outside and they don’t try and fudge it.
Many bring up the those who aren’t members belong to the soul of the Church ( they usually quote the St.Pius X Catechism) But this was condemed as a heresy by Pius XII :
57 Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, **He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body.**This presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ is tersely and vigorously described by Our predecessor of immortal memory Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter Divinum Illud in these words: "Let it suffice to say that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, so is the Holy Spirit her soul."
Many bring up the those who aren’t members belong to the soul of the Church ( they usually quote the St.Pius X Catechism) But this was condemed as a heresy by Pius XII :
57 Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, **He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body.**This presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ is tersely and vigorously described by Our predecessor of immortal memory Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter Divinum Illud in these words: "Let it suffice to say that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, so is the Holy Spirit her soul."
- They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.
- For this reason **We deplore and condemn the pernicious error of those who dream of an imaginary Church, **a kind of society that finds its origin and growth in charity, to which, somewhat contemptuously, they oppose another, which they call juridical. But this distinction which they introduce is false: for they fail to understand that the reason which led our Divine Redeemer to give to the community of man He founded the constitution of a Society, perfect of its kind and containing all the juridical and social elements -namely, that He might perpetuate on earth the saving work of Redemption [123] – was also the reason why He willed it to be enriched with the heavenly gifts of the Paraclete.
N
napad
Guest
Well I hold the consistent dogmatic teaching of the Church if that is what you mean.
I don’t follow Feeney.
G
Ghoti
Guest
I don’t know, which is part of the reason why I am asking. Bring Eugenius IV into the picture, and it seems like he was trying to plug up every possible loophole.
My point. So you are trying to say here that the Feeneyite position is the correct interpretation of EENS?
U
una_fides
Guest
St. Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent infallibly recognized a baptism by desire. The Church officially condemned the Feenyite position. The case has been settled. Actual water baptism is the necessity unless such is not possible in which case baptism by desire can suffice whether explicit in the case of catechumens or implicit in the case of someone invincibly ignorant.
U
una_fides
Guest
Holy Office, Aug 9, 1949, condemning doctrine of Father Feeney (DS 3870): “It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one adhere to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be explicit… but when a man labors under invincible ignorance, God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to the will of God.” ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM
Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863:
6. Now, since our Apostolic Office demands we carefully and zealously defend the cause of the Church committed to us by Christ, we condemn those who attack and despise the Church itself, its sacred laws, ministers, and this Apostolic See. Hence, with this letter, once more we confirm, proclaim and condemn totally and singly that which in many consistorial allocutions and in our other Letters we have been forced to deplore, declare and condemn.[3]
7. 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. **
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.”[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: “If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;”[5] “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;”[6] “He who does not believe will be condemned;”[7] “He who does not believe is already condemned;”[8] “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are “perverted and self-condemned;”[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them “false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”[11]
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm
Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863:
6. Now, since our Apostolic Office demands we carefully and zealously defend the cause of the Church committed to us by Christ, we condemn those who attack and despise the Church itself, its sacred laws, ministers, and this Apostolic See. Hence, with this letter, once more we confirm, proclaim and condemn totally and singly that which in many consistorial allocutions and in our other Letters we have been forced to deplore, declare and condemn.[3]
7. 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. **
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.”[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: “If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;”[5] “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;”[6] “He who does not believe will be condemned;”[7] “He who does not believe is already condemned;”[8] “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are “perverted and self-condemned;”[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them “false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”[11]
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm
R
ron77nyc
Guest
Are you Jesus?
N
napad
Guest
Dogmas are definitions to be believed they are not interpreted.I don’t know, which is part of the reason why I am asking. Bring Eugenius IV into the picture, and it seems like he was trying to plug up every possible loophole.
My point. So you are trying to say here that the Feeneyite position is the correct interpretation of EENS?
That is the whole meaning of dogma and definition it is precise and can’t change. Dictionary definitions are not interpreted they are either accepted or rejected.
People who promote the evolution of dogma, now use the word interpret instead of evolution.
N
napad
Guest
stop it
P
paul_c
Guest
What is your basis for this statement?
U
una_fides
Guest
Here is the problem. You misunderstand invincible ignorance. It does not mean that anyone who wants to be saved can be. An implicit desire for baptism will only suffice if the person is invincibly ignorant of the reality that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ.
I suggest reading the Catholic Encyclopedia on Ignorance:
newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm
I made my own outline from my past studies on the subject that I compiled from the CE:
• Invincible Ignorance:
Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable.
o Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin.
o It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom.
o This, however, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant.
• Vincible Ignorance:
Ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of “moral diligence”. This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to the pope in every instance. We may say, however, that the diligence requisite must be commensurate with the importance of the affair in hand, and with the capacity of the agent, in a word such as a really sensible and prudent person would use under the circumstances. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the obligation mentioned above is to be interpreted strictly and exclusively as the duty incumbent on a man to do something, the precise object of which is the acquisition of the needed knowledge.
o Types of Vincible Ignorance
• Affected:
When ignorance is deliberately aimed at and fostered, it is said to be affected, not because it is pretended, but rather because it is sought for by the agent so that he may not have to relinquish his purpose.
• Crass / Supine:
Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel
o Vincible ignorance, being in some way voluntary, does not permit a man to escape responsibility for the moral deformity of his deeds; he is held to be guilty and in general the more guilty in proportion as his ignorance is more voluntary.
o Hence, the essential thing to remember is that the guilt of an act performed or omitted in vincible ignorance is not to be measured by the intrinsic malice of the thing done or omitted so much as by the degree of negligence discernible in the act.
o It must not be forgotten that, although vincible ignorance leaves the culpability of a person intact, still it does make the act less voluntary than if it were done with full knowledge.
o Vincible and consequent ignorance about the duties of our state of life or the truths of faith necessary for salvation is, of course, sinful.
U
una_fides
Guest
God will not hold someone accountable for not possessing a special knowledge of something they could never possess. However, he does hold people accountable for their sins. Someone who is invincibly ignorant that the Catholic Church is God’s true Church will still be judged for the sins he commits. For this reason, it would be extremely difficult for someone to live a life of grace apart from the sacraments. Nevertheless, man is bound to the sacraments, but God is not and is able to communicate his grace outside the visible boundaries of the Church if he so chooses. He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.
If anyone does not apply the reasonable standard of diligence (known and judged by God) in finding out the truth about God and his Church, then make no mistake such a person cannot be considered invincibly ignorant. We know that standards of diligence are determined based on the seriousness of the matter, and what matter can be considered more serious than one’s immortal soul. We must also keep in mind that at some point in many people’s lives, God may have given them the grace necessary for salvation, but through a moment of pride, the person refused and will therefore be lost. God would be just in sending us all to hell for we have all committed sins against him that merit such punishment. It is only in his mercy that he bears with us and gives us the opportunity to confess, repent, and return to him.
If anyone does not apply the reasonable standard of diligence (known and judged by God) in finding out the truth about God and his Church, then make no mistake such a person cannot be considered invincibly ignorant. We know that standards of diligence are determined based on the seriousness of the matter, and what matter can be considered more serious than one’s immortal soul. We must also keep in mind that at some point in many people’s lives, God may have given them the grace necessary for salvation, but through a moment of pride, the person refused and will therefore be lost. God would be just in sending us all to hell for we have all committed sins against him that merit such punishment. It is only in his mercy that he bears with us and gives us the opportunity to confess, repent, and return to him.
U
una_fides
Guest
It depends on what you mean when you say “interpreted.” We interpret everything we read or hear one way or another. We often times can in good faith misinterpret or misunderstand what a writer or speaker intended his statements to mean. If we understand “interpret” in the sense of “reinterpretation” or to make something mean something other than that which it was intended to mean, then that’s where we run across problems. Nevertheless, we are obligated to interpret / understand truth in the light of other truth, as truth cannot contradict itself. Thus, if we come across two seemingly contradictory statements of truth, it is our responsibility to reconcile the passages so that they can come to a unified meaning.
Here’s an article somewhat relevant pertaining to Augustine’s approach to the interpretation of Scripture:
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009fea5.asp
L
Lionpainter
Guest
I am my Father’s Son.
L
Lionpainter
Guest
Do you think God has stopped creating?
F
FCEGM
Guest
There is only One Son - all in Christ are sons and daughters in the Son.
M
MartyMcFly
Guest
***But the whole point is that a Pope declaring a dogma IS the interpretation. It’s the final word. If there is a dispute about something, his declaration IS the interpretation. He’s telling you HOW to interpret something in scripture or sacred tradition. ***
When Pope Eugene says “We say, declare, and define” he means to say that what he is about to say he means in a literal sense.
Dogmatic definitions are not like a passage of scripture, that can have multiple metaphorical meanings. Dogmatic definitions have one PLAIN meaning. It can’t be any other way. A dogma is telling the faithful WHAT they MUST believe.
How can they believe it if in order to understand it they need to interpret it?
And as far as interpreting things in the light of other truths…well it would seem that we need to interpret encyclicals, and other statements of the Church in light of “de fide” statements and not vice versa.
When it comes to EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, everyone says “well we need to understand it in the context of the time it was written”. Why then do we not say that about OTHER Dogmas?
I don’t hear anyone saying “Well, it is true that God is Triune, but at the same time, we need to understand this doctrine in the context of the time it was written, so maybe he kind of is really not Triune.” This would be totally absurd. Or, no one says “Well we need to understand transubstantiation in context, therefore maybe it really didn’t mean it is Jesus’s body literally.”
No, when we read the dogma it says that it is Jesus’ body blood soul and divinity and we believe it AS SUCH. Case closed! The Pontiff has spoken!
If we wouldn’t tamper with those dogmas and interpret them, why do it with the DOGMA of No Salvation Outside the Church?
The Dogma IS the interpretation.
U
una_fides
Guest
Let’s please stop discussing Lionpainter’s private revelations and his claims to being a son or the son or whatever he is claiming. It’s not relevant to the topic of the thread, is in violation of the forum rules, and serves no purpose as far as this thread is concerned. Let’s reduce such talk to private messages at most please. Thanks!
- Status