J
Jayson
Guest
Check out these stained glass windows: stambrosesbflo.org/Windows/St%20Ambrose%20Church%20window%2013.htm?articleid=301
this is how far this has been taken.
this is how far this has been taken.
- Status
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
Peace be with you!
This was exactly what I was saying. I didn’t mean to say that the Church didn’t teach that you don’t have to be part of the Church to be saved, but that there is a distinction between Catholic and catholic. You only quoted my first sentence and took it out of context.
UMSC, you’ve taken the Protestant shot-gun blast approach. There is no way I can respond to everything right now. You said I haven’t provided a Magesterium document…I provided the Catechism! I cited it in two seperate posts! Is that not official enough? It says, on the cover, “Promulgated by Pope John Paul II”.
In Christ,
Rand
S
Sherlock
Guest
I don’t know if I’d call it an “obsession”, nor do I see that desire in any remarkable degree among orthodox Catholics, but rather among heterodox Catholics who simply don’t know their faith (and don’t like the Church’s moral teaching). However, this particular thread got going because of the Feeneyite take on a question of suicide that USMC took. Look, God is merciful. Of course we don’t know (and won’t say) that the unbaptized WILL be saved, but the attribute of mercy that we assign to God does logicaly mean that we have good reason to suppose that God makes provisions for unbaptized babies, the invincibly ignorant, and so on. The “obsession” that I see is on the Feeneyite side.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I didn’t actually see where USMC made this assertion. But, perhaps I simply missed it.
As I see it, a person must be joined to the Catholic Church in soul, if not in body (yet God desires both), and that one may be joined to the Church by a “certain unconscious desire.” Yet, “it is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith.” (Letter of Holy Office, approved and promulgated by Pius XII, August 8, 1949)
J
jimmy
Guest
Rand Al'Thor:
Non-Christians may be united to the Church in a mystical way but there is absolutely no way that you know whether there is a single one that is united in a mystical way. Therefore remain silent on their salvation and teach the absolute necessity of baptism.
Catholic and catholic are the exact same thing. This upper case lower case thing is rediculous and it degrades the teaching of the Church. There is one Catholic Church and it is the Catholic Church in union with the pope. Protestants may be united with the Catholic Church due to their baptism but that in no way makes them catholic with a small “c” because that is just a fabrication. Please show me one official document of the Church that makes this capital vs. small “c” distinction. I will accept something from a saints writings. I don’t want to see a quote from an contemporary apologist.
Non-Christians may be united to the Church in a mystical way but there is absolutely no way that you know whether there is a single one that is united in a mystical way. Therefore remain silent on their salvation and teach the absolute necessity of baptism.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Rand Al'Thor:
Please site a document of the Magisterium where this is taught!
I can see that you are trying to make a distinction between the visible institutional Church and some sort of nebulous “catholic” Church. I don’t accept your distinction. You assert:It is now taught that one must be part of the catholic Church to be saved. Note the use of upper- and lower-case on the word “catholic”. While before it was understood as meaning the Catholic Church (the actual institution). Now it is understood to mean that to be saved one must be part of the UNIVERSAL Church (taking the word “catholic” at its true meaning).
Please site a document of the Magisterium where this is taught!
J
jimmy
Guest
Both sides are in error. The Feeneyites ignore the council of Trent and all the saints writings to get what they teach. The other side, which are basically pelagians, have ignored the constant teaching of the necessity of baptism. They have also ignored the teaching that we can only be saved through grace and assumed that man can save himself by being good.
I have seen the error a lot on this forum. People desire to see all saved, and it is a great thing to hope for, but they ignore the teachings of the Church. There is a modern indifferentism that has lead many Catholics to believe that it really doesn’t matter if you are Catholic. They say that if you die a hindu you will be a "c"atholic in heaven. It’s denying the teaching.
B
buffalo
Guest
Rand Al'Thor:
If you find youself in heaven you will have come through the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus as the way to heaven, in ways only known to Him.
S
Sherlock
Guest
I agree with all you say here.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
What I think is debated here is what among the “Catholic faith” must be explicitly asserted. Obviously, infants who die after baptism go to heaven without ever expressing their faith explicitly. They do not recite the creed, for example. But they must in some mystical way have faith, hope, and charity infused in their very being at baptism.
Likewise, there may be some who are ignorant of certain aspects of Catholic faith through no fault of their own. Thus, are they gravely bound to what they do not know or understand? Or is culpability for sin linked to the degree of voluntariness of human acts as St. Thomas Aquinas asserts? Is there room for implicit faith for adults as in baptized infants? To what extent is this implicit faith acceptable to God and is there any aspect of the faith that *absolutely *requires “explicit” (expressed) faith?
What about a God-fearing adult who believes at least in the existence of God and that he is a rewarder of those that seek him? Is that kind of faith supernatural? Is it pleasing to God in such a way that one can have this kind of supernatural faith animated by charity, which includes “a certain unconscious desire” to be join to the Catholic Church, such that they are joined to the same ark of salvation as all the saints?
Heb 11:6 states, “But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.”
Doesn’t this appear to be what Holy Writ calls that “faith” without which it is impossible to please God?
Likewise, there may be some who are ignorant of certain aspects of Catholic faith through no fault of their own. Thus, are they gravely bound to what they do not know or understand? Or is culpability for sin linked to the degree of voluntariness of human acts as St. Thomas Aquinas asserts? Is there room for implicit faith for adults as in baptized infants? To what extent is this implicit faith acceptable to God and is there any aspect of the faith that *absolutely *requires “explicit” (expressed) faith?
What about a God-fearing adult who believes at least in the existence of God and that he is a rewarder of those that seek him? Is that kind of faith supernatural? Is it pleasing to God in such a way that one can have this kind of supernatural faith animated by charity, which includes “a certain unconscious desire” to be join to the Catholic Church, such that they are joined to the same ark of salvation as all the saints?
Heb 11:6 states, “But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.”
Doesn’t this appear to be what Holy Writ calls that “faith” without which it is impossible to please God?
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Supernatural faith is, of course, a gift of grace, and no one can be animated by perfect charity apart from the grace of God.It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life …
Pope Pius IX, Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863
Pope Pius IX is simply repeating the teaching of Paul:
For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, * while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.
Romans 2:14-15
… if an uncircumcised man keeps the precepts of the law, will he not be considered circumcised? Indeed, those who are physically uncircumcised but carry out the law will pass judgment on you, with your written law and circumcision, who break the law.
Romans 2:26-27
There is no partiality with God. All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.
Romans 2:11-12*
U
USMC
Guest
Please show me where I ever said that a person must be a formal member of the Church to be saved?
The interesting thing about that comment is that I never gave my “interpretation” of the dogma. I simply quoted the words of the magisterium, both ordinary and extraordinary.
What your words implicitly show is that you are actually disagreeing with the solemn words of the magisterium, and not my interpretation of them, since I didn’t give it. Interesting.
U
USMC
Guest
Rand Al'Thor:
Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)
Rand Al'Thor:
OK, then just comment on this. Let me know if you believe the following statement from the magisterium.
Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)
Rand Al'Thor:
If you quoted from the Catechism I missed it. If you would like to discuss what the new catechism says, post a portion and I will comment on it.
U
USMC
Guest
Just for the record and I not a Feeneyite, and do not agree with them.
S
stanley123
Guest
These are clear statements concerning the previous teaching. I don’t see how anyone could say that there has been no change in the teaching, but only a development for further clarification. Why would not a development of the teaching which turns it around into meaning the opposite of what it originally meant be a total and complete change in the original teaching.
- At the Council of Florence, was it not taught that Jews would go to hell.
- Now is it not taught that the Covenant is salvific for the Jew and he can attain heaven by means of the Covenant.
Isn’t this development simply a complete and total change in the teaching?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
This is what the Catechism says in the section (part of two) that deals with how the Church see her realtionship with non-Catholic Christians:
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
The teaching of prior councils and popes isn’t undone by this, it seems to me, but clarified and refined, ie., we distinguish between the formal and the material heretic, the formal and the informal schismatic. This is also completely in accord with the assertion that the Church is absolutely necessary for salvation (ie, they would not possess ANY salvific means absent what they derived from the Catholic Church). It’s like the question arose," We know about heretics, but what about their children?"
I do not think that the Catechism, in discussing this, can contextually be read is such a way that our fellow, non-Catholic Christians will be saved only ***if ***they are in invincible ignorance of the Catholic Church. Read it: the CCC deals with non-Catholic Christians in one section, then with non-Christians in the succeeding section, then with those who never hear the Name of Jesus at all. Invincible ignorance only applies to them, not to our fellow Christians (to one degree or another: there is a group that denies the Trinity and baptizes only in the Name of Jesus, so I should think they’d be outside the fold).
In the end, Jesus will know His own.
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
The teaching of prior councils and popes isn’t undone by this, it seems to me, but clarified and refined, ie., we distinguish between the formal and the material heretic, the formal and the informal schismatic. This is also completely in accord with the assertion that the Church is absolutely necessary for salvation (ie, they would not possess ANY salvific means absent what they derived from the Catholic Church). It’s like the question arose," We know about heretics, but what about their children?"
I do not think that the Catechism, in discussing this, can contextually be read is such a way that our fellow, non-Catholic Christians will be saved only ***if ***they are in invincible ignorance of the Catholic Church. Read it: the CCC deals with non-Catholic Christians in one section, then with non-Christians in the succeeding section, then with those who never hear the Name of Jesus at all. Invincible ignorance only applies to them, not to our fellow Christians (to one degree or another: there is a group that denies the Trinity and baptizes only in the Name of Jesus, so I should think they’d be outside the fold).
In the end, Jesus will know His own.
J
jimmy
Guest
The teaching has not changed, the only thing that changed is peoples interpretation of the teaching. It has not been developed.
The Covenant is for those who have been baptized. We know no way of salvation other than water baptism. That was the main point of the council of Florence. They were disputing the error of those who denied the importance of baptism. Therefore they taught that without baptism there is no salvation. The Church has always taught baptism by desire and blood are possible. That was not mentioned at Florence because of the error that baptism meant nothing. At Trent they mention that a person recieves justification by baptism of water or the desire of it. At Florence they taught the absolute necessity of baptism of water.
The current teaching is the same as it was at Florence.
J
jimmy
Guest
That is an error. A denial of any truth of the faith leads to hell. Invincible ignorance applies to all who are not formally Catholic and accepting of every single doctrine. If a protestant is not invincibly ignorant of his errors he will not recieve salvation. In as much as they reject the Catholic faith they are also seperated from God.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
In prior discussion about this with USMC, I agree that he does not assert Feeneyism. I think many have jumped to a hasty conclusion about what he believes.
He and I both wonder, however, where explicit faith is absolutely necessary. I believe the common teaching is that Heb 11:6 tells us what faith must consists of. Whether Heb 11:6 intends explicit faith is speculative and among “free opinion.”.
I believe we are held accountable for what gifts have been given to us. If we have the gift to discern that every dogma of our Holy Religion requires our explicit faith, and yet we refuse to give the assent of faith, then we are going to be held accountable. However, those with less gifts will be judged by a lesser standard. I believe that at least implicit faith is absolutely necessariy for salvation.
He and I both wonder, however, where explicit faith is absolutely necessary. I believe the common teaching is that Heb 11:6 tells us what faith must consists of. Whether Heb 11:6 intends explicit faith is speculative and among “free opinion.”.
I believe we are held accountable for what gifts have been given to us. If we have the gift to discern that every dogma of our Holy Religion requires our explicit faith, and yet we refuse to give the assent of faith, then we are going to be held accountable. However, those with less gifts will be judged by a lesser standard. I believe that at least implicit faith is absolutely necessariy for salvation.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Yes, that is the question.
How can a person that is invincibly ignorant of the Gospel be gravely bound to explicitly confess that Jesus is Lord, or that he must formally enter the Catholic Church by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism?
The teaching of Pope Pius IX in Quanto conficiamur moerore would include, say, the man of the Lakota Sioux nation that in AD 500 that believed in the Great Spirit, and “aided by the light of divine grace” observed “carefully the natural law” that is written on his heart. In no way would this man be required to confess explicit belief in the historical person of Jesus or explicitly desire the Sacrament of Baptism. How could a man of the Lakota Sioux nation in AD 500 possibly know the Gospel before it was ever preached Sioux nation? Such a man is invincibly ignorant, i.e. he does not know the Gospel through no fault of his own.
The Feenyites deny that such a man could be saved. The Feenyites assert that unless a man becomes a formal member of the Catholic Church before he dies, that we can know with certainty that this man is eternally damned to Hell. The beliefs of the Feeneyites are not much different than the Fundamentalist Protestants that teach that unless a man explicitly confesses Jesus Christ as his own personal Lord and Savior before he dies that he will be surely damned to Hell. Both the Feeneyites and the Fundamentalist Protestants have a very warped understanding of the Merciful Lord.
- Status