No Salvation Outside The Church?

[jericho777]

If you really believed this, you would accept what he teaches, which is that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, and through her, the only true gospel is preserved and maintained.

God does call individuals to service, but never in separation from His Holy Bride, the Church. The HS directs the individual through the Church, who has been given the authority for this purpose. If you really accepted what is written in the Bible, you would believe this.

My point is Paul was called and ordained by God directly for service apart from any organization. The revealed church in the NT is semi autonomous congregations doing the will of God under the calling and leading of the Holy Spirit. When you read Acts you see it is the Holy Spirit leading and directing believers on their missioins.

 

[jericho777]

The foundation of truth is the Church, correct?

Christ is the truth and foundation the church is built on. The church can not be truth in of itself.

 

[twb1621]

Our disagreement comes with the definition of who or what is the “church”. Your view is more of an organization rather than a body made up of individual believers. You are always waiting for direction from an organization rather than operating on what the bible has already revealed.

The apostle Paul is a perfect example of what I believe is the way christians should operate. God calls individuals to service and gives His Holy Spirit to facilitate their mission. It is the Holy Spirit that directs the individual to service.

 

[inkaneer]

Our disagreement comes with the definition of who or what is the “church”. Your view is more of an organization rather than a body made up of individual believers. You are always waiting for direction from an organization rather than operating on what the bible has already revealed.

The apostle Paul is a perfect example of what I believe is the way christians should operate. God calls individuals to service and gives His Holy Spirit to facilitate their mission. It is the Holy Spirit that directs the individual to service.

But all one has to do is read their bible and see that there is only one church established by Christ and that church did have an organizational structure based on Peter and the Apostles, then bishops episcopoi] as their successors, priests presbuteros] and deacons diakonai]. Even Paul was under authority of Peter.

If it is true, as I hear protestant ministers claim, that the OT prefigures the NT and the NT is the perfection of the OT. Then all one has to do is look at the church [Israel] in the Old Testament. Israel always had a human leader be it Abraham, Moses, the Davidic kings, etc. Jesus, the last ofthe Davidic kings, had 12 Apostles which mirrors the 12 stewards of the OT Davidic kings. One of those stewards was chosen as the chief steward and given the keys to the kingdom and could act in the name of the king and who could open and no one could shut and shut and no one could open [Is 22:22]. Compare that with the binding and loosening power of Peter in the NT [Mt 16:18-19].

Look at Acts 15 and the council of Jerusalem. Antioch is clearly not an independant church of believers . They are like Catholics today as you state, “waiting for direction from an organization rather than operating on what the bible has already revealed”. They seek an authoritative decision from The Apostles in Jerusalem.

And all one has to do is look at the state of protestantism today to see the results of “operating on what the bible has already revealed”. Look at all the different denominations in just 500 years. There are between 30,000 and 40,000+ different protestant denominations depending on which protestant source you want to cite. And didn’t Jesus pray that His followers be one? Here is a question for you to respond to. If, as you say, “God calls individuals to service and gives His Holy Spirit to facilitate their mission. It is the Holy Spirit that directs the individual to service” then which of these myriad of Protestant denominations is the Holy Spirit directing? Obviously it can’t be all of them as they are preaching different doctrines, some of which are contradictory as in the case of Baptism. Sowhich is the Holy Spiroit directing and, maybe more important question, how do we know?

 

[inkaneer]

Christ is the truth and foundation the church is built on. The church can not be truth in of itself.

Scripture says that it is the church that is the pillar and foundation of truth [1Ti 3:15]. That is, or should be, an amazing statement for any sola scripturist protestant and cause to, at least begin, questioning sola scriptura because if sola scriptura was true then scripture not the church, would be the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[twb1621]

Our disagreement comes with the definition of who or what is the “church”. Your view is more of an organization rather than a body made up of individual believers. You are always waiting for direction from an organization rather than operating on what the bible has already revealed.

The apostle Paul is a perfect example of what I believe is the way christians should operate. God calls individuals to service and gives His Holy Spirit to facilitate their mission. It is the Holy Spirit that directs the individual to service.

Forgive me if I seemed a bit winded but I believe our Lord’s desire warrants points to be made. I understand your beliefs and recognize your heartfelt devotion to scripture, but it is clear Jesus did not give the keys to everyone, nor did He give the authority to loose and bind or the authority to forgive the sins of others to everyone. He did not stand before the crowds of thousands of His followers and send them forth to proclaim the Gospel. He did not send ALL of His followers out to preach His word to all nations, he selected 12 initially, 72 others at another time, and so on but selected those who would represent His Word as teachers.

Let me also clarify that your deduction of my devotion is drastically wrong in that for 25 years I didn’t agree with many things the Church taught and its authority. As a professional, I researched over the last 6 years seeking the truth in Christian faith and teachings of Jesus Christ not wanting to return to the Catholic Church because of my disagreements with some of her teachings. It was the lineage of the teachings of Scripture, that led me directly back to the Catholic Church. I also realized it was and is the opinions of others against the teachings of the Catholic Faith that led to the thousands of Christian faiths all with their own interpretations as exist today. The scripture you speak of was taken from the overall teachings of the Catholic Faith and the contents of every Holy Bible came from those teachings but somewhat adapted in interpretation to fit the opinions of men and women who started their own teachings based on their own opinions, and on it continues today.

Scripture led me to the Catholic church and my devotion is to the word of God first over all. The Catholic Church teaches His word in the context it was passed on from the apostles to the apostolic Fathers through the Early Church Fathers through today and this is proven in the study of Christian history and theology.

Paul was gifted by Jesus and called to His service directly which no man can compare other than those taught directly by and in the company of Christ our Lord Himself. Yes, we have a responsibility to service but not independent of the Church He established nor independent of the very teachings proven to be handed down century through century through century and on… Paul also was clear to seek the guidance of the Apostles and Paul accompanied Peter in Rome during the establishment of the seat.

There are two references made with the term Church as was said earlier here, both of which are used in Scripture and in the writings of the ECFs. The Church as the Body of Christ referring to everyone of the “One faith” and the Church as the authoritative teacher assigned by Christ to teach all nations until His return. The reason for the double reference is simply because those of the teaching entity and those disciples or faithful of the Catholic Church recognized only one Church as the guiding institution of Christianity. For example; if I refer to the Baptist Church I may be referring to a guiding committee or the faithful or all involved. That is the way people relate in many cases.

If authority, whether to teach or otherwise, is given to a specific individual or individuals it immediately establishes an entity with qualifications above others. The covenant, and I specifically say covenant, Jesus made with His Church was that it would never fall, would be guided by the Holy Spirit, He would never abandon her and she would continue until His return which is clear that would mean the succession of the seats of the apostles through her existence, of which the apostles themselves established succession to their seats. The written word was intended to be preached in the full teachings of the Church authority preserving the true understanding of the entire message, interpretation, direction and expectations in the pursuit of salvation, with guidance given by the earthly chosen teachers carrying on Christ’s Word, thus being referred to as Sacred Tradition through Apostolic Succession.

continued…

 

[twb1621]

Continued from previous post;

No one can deny with any credibility the Bible was taken out of its element by those who believed some but not all of these teachings, of which were adapted to some degree in interpretation to suit those men and women who subsequently founded other faiths. They founded those other faiths on what they could accept and what they could not accept based on what they could understand along with their personal opinions. In fact, opinions have no place in Christ’s teachings as His word is not flexible or open to the opinions of others. It is God’s Word. To believe the Catholic Church ended somewhere along the line or became invalid is to suggest our Lord lied in His covenant or would have broken His covenant. True faith requires the acceptance of all His teachings with or without understanding as is exemplified when Christ asked the apostles if they also would leave Him. They did not understand His proclamation in the eating of His Body and Blood but responded through Peter with assurance of their devotion in faith and trust in His word without understanding or questioning.

Scripture portrays the establishment of a hierarchy by Jesus and the apostles through the authority given them by Christ Himself to see to the unending teachings of His Church (church as the entire body). No one claims the disciples (students or followers) are not members of the Church, that is a given. But there can not be a true and consistent teaching without authority to protect preserve and correctly present that teaching. Without authority, division breeds as the results of the “reformation” have proven. Now, scripture does not conflict with itself and if a person’s interpretation of one verse conflicts with other verses, that person’s interpretation is inaccurate. One can not just disregard those teachings that do not conform to ones opinions of other verses.

Scripture clearly warns of the distorted teachings of men who would lead others astray both within and outside His Church and directs us to persevere. It does not imply, support or validate the establishment or the re-conforming of His Church by any human being at all, nor does it support any movement such as the reformation. The writings of the Church Fathers can not be disregarded with any rationale or credibility while claiming the Holy Bible contains the Inspired Word of God as it was the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers who over the first 4 centuries, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit gathered, selected , compiled and Interpreted the contents of the Holy Bible itself.

Finally, no teaching institution in the world relinquishes its authority over to its students, it is the authority of what it teaches and it is the students who respect their position as the ones in need of education. Scripture is also very clear that the Apostles were the only source of the true teachings of Christ so that all would know not to follow others independent of them and be misled.

If you desire supporting references to scripture or the ECFs I would be glad to present them.

 

[AnneElliot]

AnneElliot;6947836:

It’s not entirely wrong.

Others have asserted that there are, in fact, non-Catholics in Heaven. Yet cannot provide even one name.
(I can list numerous Catholics who are in Heaven, by name. )

Others have asserted that St. Paul claims persons outside the Church can be saved, yet have provided no Scriptural reference stating this.

etc.

I think you are mistaken, Anne. I dont’ think anyone here has asserted either of these things. I think these are figments of your imagination.

I can’t make this stuff up…

I have known Non Catholic Christians who are so passionately in love and devoted to Christ and their life works reflect this. I know I will see them in paradise.

How can you possibly think that there aren’t devout Christians that are not Catholic who will be in heaven?

Even YOU, guanophore asserted that there are non-Catholics Heaven:

At the same time, there are very saintly persons that are non-Catholic, whose souls are in heaven. Not all the martyrs are canonized.

etc.

Further, unwittingly embracing errors in doctrine does not invalidate baptism.

I never said such a thing.

Abraham was justified by faith. Is Abe in Heaven? Was Abraham a Catholic?

Abraham died before the institution of the New Law, as such, he was not bound by it. But, considering that Jesus descended into Hell to preach to the souls of the just before His Ascension (which opened Heaven), I would contend that Abraham embraced Jesus Christ for Who He is.

1 Peter 3:18-20 “…Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God…”

You have totally missed the point of St. Paul’s words.

So then enlighten me.

The necessity for belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of precept, but also a necessity of means, as Pius IX referred to the Catholic Church as the only Ark of salvation.

I agree.

“The necessity of means is, however, not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one. In special circumstances, namely in the case of invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the desire (votum) for the same. This need not be expressly (explicite) present, but can also be included in the moral readiness faithfully to fulfill the will of God (votum implicitum). In this manner also those who are in point of fact outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.” [my emphasis] (See Dr. Ludwig Ott: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)

The problem is, this is Ott’s distinction. He does not cite any authoritative documents that outline the distinction he wants to make. You find me a Papal or Conciliar document that says the necessity of means is a hypothetical one, and not an absolute, and I’ll concede.

That is, the earliest Christian writers reflected on the biblical narrative of the “pagan” Cornelius who, the Acts of the Apostles tell us, was “an upright and God fearing man” even before baptism. “Gradually, therefore, as it became clear that there were “God-fearing” people outside the Christian fold, and that some were deprived of their Catholic heritage without fault, on their part, the parallel Tradition arose of considering such people open to salvation, although they were not professed Catholics or even necessarily baptized. St. Ambrose and St. Augustine paved the way for making these distinctions.” (Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.: The Catholic Catechism)

As much as I love Fr. Hardon, he’s not the Pope.

Secondly, Cornelius was baptized and entered the Church. All the “God-fearing” people outside the fold were brought into the fold. Conversion wasn’t closed off to them. Gentiles AND Jews could be (and were) baptized Christians. They converted.

Actually these matters are most relevant to the subject of the Church and salvation. You are too quick to arbitrarily dismiss pertinent facts.

I was not arbitrarily dismissing them. I already briefly addressed the issue several pages earlier. Both are theories. Theories can’t save anyone, so what’s the point in promoting them?

That is, by the 12th century it was widely assumed that a person can be saved if some “invincible obstacle stands in the way” of his baptism and entrance into the Church. (Cf. Fr. Hardon)

St. Thomas Aquinas also conceded that a person may be saved extra sacramentally by a baptism of desire and therefore without actual membership by reason of his at least implicit desire to belong to the Church.

The early Church fathers (and St. Thomas Aquinas, and other Saints) spoke of catechumens who died before their baptism when talking about baptism of desire. If you hold baptism of desire for catechumens, you can make a case for it. You’re going to struggle if you think it applies to everyone.

 

[jericho777]

But all one has to do is read their bible and see that there is only one church established by Christ and that church did have an organizational structure based on Peter and the Apostles, then bishops episcopoi] as their successors, priests presbuteros] and deacons diakonai]. Even Paul was under authority of Peter.

If it is true, as I hear protestant ministers claim, that the OT prefigures the NT and the NT is the perfection of the OT. Then all one has to do is look at the church [Israel] in the Old Testament. Israel always had a human leader be it Abraham, Moses, the Davidic kings, etc. Jesus, the last ofthe Davidic kings, had 12 Apostles which mirrors the 12 stewards of the OT Davidic kings. One of those stewards was chosen as the chief steward and given the keys to the kingdom and could act in the name of the king and who could open and no one could shut and shut and no one could open [Is 22:22]. Compare that with the binding and loosening power of Peter in the NT [Mt 16:18-19].

Look at Acts 15 and the council of Jerusalem. Antioch is clearly not an independant church of believers . They are like Catholics today as you state, “waiting for direction from an organization rather than operating on what the bible has already revealed”. They seek an authoritative decision from The Apostles in Jerusalem.

And all one has to do is look at the state of protestantism today to see the results of “operating on what the bible has already revealed”. Look at all the different denominations in just 500 years. There are between 30,000 and 40,000+ different protestant denominations depending on which protestant source you want to cite. And didn’t Jesus pray that His followers be one? Here is a question for you to respond to. If, as you say, “God calls individuals to service and gives His Holy Spirit to facilitate their mission. It is the Holy Spirit that directs the individual to service” then which of these myriad of Protestant denominations is the Holy Spirit directing? Obviously it can’t be all of them as they are preaching different doctrines, some of which are contradictory as in the case of Baptism. Sowhich is the Holy Spiroit directing and, maybe more important question, how do we know?

As far as church structure goes they were semi autonomus congregations. And the structure of each congregation is to self rule. Each is to have elders plural.There is no priesthood as defined by Rome.

I cannot speak to your second point about what protestant ministers claim.

The council in Jerusalem was concerened with Jews first and uncertain about the gentiles ability to become christians. When you read Acts 15 remember they consulted scripture to see how they shoul decide the issue.

First I’m not protesting anything. You all can do what ever you want. And as to the direction of the Holy Spirit you all are hung up on denominationalism and church membership. You are missing the greater point that God is not a respector of persons or denominations. Just look at the Jews in the new testament saying they were the seed of Abraham. God uses people who are willing to do His will apart from denominational affiliation.

 

[jericho777]

Scripture says that it is the church that is the pillar and foundation of truth [1Ti 3:15]. That is, or should be, an amazing statement for any sola scripturist protestant and cause to, at least begin, questioning sola scriptura because if sola scriptura was true then scripture not the church, would be the pillar and foundation of truth.

There are over 100 times in the NT when scripture is used as the basis and authority for the positions held by believers. They were constantly searching scripture to find the will of God. Any decision the early church made was made based on the authority or scripture see Acts 15.

 

[jericho777]

Forgive me if I seemed a bit winded but I believe our Lord’s desire warrants points to be made. I understand your beliefs and recognize your heartfelt devotion to scripture, but it is clear Jesus did not give the keys to everyone, nor did He give the authority to loose and bind or the authority to forgive the sins of others to everyone. He did not stand before the crowds of thousands of His followers and send them forth to proclaim the Gospel. He did not send ALL of His followers out to preach His word to all nations, he selected 12 initially, 72 others at another time, and so on but selected those who would represent His Word as teachers.

continued…

Here is my short answer to your post. When churches are mentioned in the NT they are in reference to location and deed see Rev 2. They were only bound by their love for Christ. Even in 3 John1:9-10 there was a bad leader who refused the true fellowship. How come no one was sent from the head church to remove him?

PS your posts are not long winded but insightful.

 

[inkaneer]

As far as church structure goes they were semi autonomus congregations. And the structure of each congregation is to self rule. Each is to have elders plural.There is no priesthood as defined by Rome.

I cannot speak to your second point about what protestant ministers claim.

The council in Jerusalem was concerened with Jews first and uncertain about the gentiles ability to become christians. When you read Acts 15 remember they consulted scripture to see how they should decide the issue.

First I’m not protesting anything. You all can do what ever you want. And as to the direction of the Holy Spirit you all are hung up on denominationalism and church membership. You are missing the greater point that God is not a respector of persons or denominations. Just look at the Jews in the new testament saying they were the seed of Abraham. God uses people who are willing to do His will apart from denominational affiliation.

Semi autonomous congregations??? What does that mean? Look, here it is. There was one church, just one. Jesus said He would establish a church not a bunch of semi autonomous churches. Go read it it in your bible, Matthew 16:18:

And I say (5719) also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. " [Mt 16:18]

The Greek word for church is Ekklesia and it is singular not plural. As further proof that it is singular notice the pronoun that Jesus uses to refer to the church he will establish. The pronoun is “it” as in “…the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” If there were churches the pronoun would be the plural, “them”.

As for the council of Jerusalem you could not be more wrong. The problem in Antioch was caused by the Judiacizers who insisted that the Gentiles first become Jews then Christians. They demanded that the Gentiles be circumcized. It was the Judiacizers who were the sola scripturists of their day insisting that the OT Mosaic circumcision laws be applied. Paul said no but the Judiacizers would not accept his authority as an APostle so the matter was referred to the Apostles in Jerusalem. Did they consult scripture? NO!!! They debated the issues and scripture says there was much debate. Then something happened. Peter stood up and addressed those assembled. And everyone shut up. Yeah, the scripture says:

“12 And all the assembly kept silence;” [Acts 15:12]

WHY? Because the boss was speaking and they knew it. After Peter speaks there is no more debate. John crafts an answer and Acts 15:28 tells us:

“28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:” [Acts 15:28]

Did they mention scripture? Nope! They claimed a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. There was no reference to scripture. In fact they contradicted the very scripture that the sola scripturist Judiacizers used.

And if we are hung up on church membership it is because Jesus only established one church and if you ain’t in it then what are you? Does your defiant tone mean that you want to remain blind to the truth and will remain in your 16th century man made tradition?

 

[cathdoki]

This is useless!

 

[itinerant1]

Abraham died before the institution of the New Law, as such, he was not bound by it. But, considering that Jesus descended into Hell to preach to the souls of the just before His Ascension (which opened Heaven), I would contend that Abraham embraced Jesus Christ for Who He is.

1 Peter 3:18-20 “…Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God…”

Abraham was considered justified and righteous before God while still on earth. Hence, Christ’s preaching to souls in waiting after His death is not to the point.

The problem is, this is Ott’s distinction. He does not cite any authoritative documents that outline the distinction he wants to make. You find me a Papal or Conciliar document that says the necessity of means is a hypothetical one, and not an absolute, and I’ll concede.

Why do you say Ott does not cite any authoritative documents?

The possibility of salvation for some outside the Church was left open by Popes and Councils. For instance, the Council of Trent, in its Decree on Justification allows for the “baptism of desire” (cf. chap. 4: “cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration, or a desire for it”). Pope Pius IX states a necessity that is hypothetical in *Quanto conficiamur moerore: “*It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invicible ingorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law…” etc. Pope Pius IX again states the possible exception in the case of invincible ignorance in Singulari quadem.

As much as I love Fr. Hardon, he’s not the Pope.

I did not know you were a theologian superior to Fr. Hardon.

Secondly, Cornelius was baptized and entered the Church. All the “God-fearing” people outside the fold were brought into the fold. Conversion wasn’t closed off to them. Gentiles AND Jews could be (and were) baptized Christians. They converted.

They did convert, but you skipped around the main point. The point was that Cornelius, while still a pagan, was considered “upright and God-fearing.” It is from this fact that the Tradition arose, upon reflection on the text, in the early Church, that it is possible for one outside the Church, if non-membership is through no fault of his own, to be saved. Father Hardon notes the existence of that Tradition in the life of the Church.

I was not arbitrarily dismissing them. I already briefly addressed the issue several pages earlier. Both are theories. Theories can’t save anyone, so what’s the point in promoting them?

You are dismissing as mere theories that which has been taught by Popes, Councils, Saints and Doctors of the Church.

The early Church fathers (and St. Thomas Aquinas, and other Saints) spoke of catechumens who died before their baptism when talking about baptism of desire. If you hold baptism of desire for catechumens, you can make a case for it. You’re going to struggle if you think it applies to everyone.

St. Thomas and others did teach the the baptism of desire, and generally in the context of catechumens, as they were accustomed to teach cautiously on the topic of salvation outside the Church. Strictly speaking, by what is required, i.e. the three conditions I mentioned in an earlier post, for a person to be a member of the Church, un-baptized catechumens are not yet members of the Church. Hence, we have here the clear possibility of salvation outside the Church due to “God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly, (St Thomas).”

In principle, there is no sound theological reason to limit the baptism of desire to catechumens, as the teachings of Pius IX have allowed for a broader interpretation.

 

[cathdoki]

Abraham was considered justified and righteous before God while still on earth. Hence, Christ’s preaching to souls in waiting after His death is not to the point.

Why do you say Ott does not cite any authoritative documents?

The possibility of salvation for some outside the Church was left open by Popes and Councils. For instance, the Council of Trent, in its Decree on Justification allows for the “baptism of desire” (cf. chap. 4: “cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration, or a desire for it”). Pope Pius IX states a necessity that is hypothetical in *Quanto conficiamur moerore: “*It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invicible ingorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law…” etc. Pope Pius IX again states the possible exception in the case of invincible ignorance in Singulari quadem.

I did not know you were a theologian superior to Fr. Hardon.

They did convert, but you skipped around the main point. The point was that Cornelius, while still a pagan, was considered “upright and God-fearing.” It is from this fact that the Tradition arose, upon reflection on the text, in the early Church, that it is possible for one outside the Church, if non-membership is through no fault of his own, to be saved. Father Hardon notes the existence of that Tradition in the life of the Church.

You are dismissing as mere theories that which has been taught by Popes, Councils, Saints and Doctors of the Church.

St. Thomas and others did teach the the baptism of desire, and generally in the context of catechumens, as they were accustomed to teach cautiously on the topic of salvation outside the Church. Strictly speaking, by what is required, i.e. the three conditions I mentioned in an earlier post, for a person to be a member of the Church, un-baptized catechumens are not yet members of the Church. Hence, we have here the clear possibility of salvation outside the Church due to “God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly, (St Thomas).”

In principle, there is no sound theological reason to limit the baptism of desire to catechumens, as the teachings of Pius IX have allowed for a broader interpretation.

You are battling elitists!

 

[cathdoki]

We could really take this discussion one step farther for those that believe that everyone but Catholics are condemned to hell. Most of these “no salvation outside this or that” would be condemned by this group. If you read all the junk on their website you’ll have to be convinced that Novus Ordo Catholics are heretics. Just like the Orthodox and protestants. Even the SSPX folks are heretics according to their strict interpretation of Pope Eugene.

It’s hilarious, because it shows how far the elite can take things.

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/

 

[AnneElliot]

Abraham was considered justified and righteous before God while still on earth. Hence, Christ’s preaching to souls in waiting after His death is not to the point.

Once again, Abraham was under the Old Law…

Why do you say Ott does not cite any authoritative documents?

Read what I wrote again… I said Ott does not cite any authoritative documents claiming the necessity of means is only “hypothetical” and not absolute.

Ott is a great reference… but where he does not cite official Magisterial teachings you have to realize he is a theologian (well-learned); but his opining is not authoritative unless he can back it up. This is true of ALL theologians.

The possibility of salvation for some outside the Church was left open by Popes and Councils.

This is new… most would suggest that they are really in the Church (somehow) other than through Baptism. The Dogma is “No salvation outside the Church”… are you suggesting the Dogma is wrong?

For instance, the Council of Trent…
Pope Pius IX states a necessity that is hypothetical in Quanto conficiamur moerore…
Pope Pius IX again states the possible exception in the case of invincible ignorance in Singulari quadem.

These are not clear definitions.

For example:

The Council of Trent draws a parallel between “the laver of regneration, or a desire for it” and John 3:5, since the text states, “as it is written…” John 3:5 clearly necessitates both water AND the Spirit. So read the Conciliar text again…

"… this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it, as it is written: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5].”

I read that text and see the Council Fathers necessitating the need for the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism alongside the actual reception of the Sacrament itself. Canon 5 of the Canons on Baptism does not make any exceptions.
(There are historical occurrences that also seem to back up the idea that the Council Fathers wished to combine the need for the desire for the Sacrament alongside the actual reception of it… I am thinking mostly of the “Conversos”)
You can’t have a wedding without a bride or groom, but that doesn’t mean you can have one with only one and not the other!

Regarding Singulari Quadem:
“It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in *this *matter before the eyes of the Lord” (my emphasis)

You left off a very important qualifier. “… in THIS matter” (i.e., the issue of infidelity to a faith of which they were ignorant). There other sins are still upon them. Original Sin still needs cleansed, etc.

The same is true for Quanto conficiamur moerore:
“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…”

Once again, God will not punish persons for sins they are not culpable for… but their other sins are still upon them (even if only Original Sin). Should we lose hope for their possible salvation? No, because God can reveal to them what is necessary for their salvation by “the efficacious virtue of divine light [knowledge] and grace”. We have evidence of such miracles in the lives of the Saints. Ven. Mary of Agreda bilocated more than five hundred times to convert the Native Americans in the New Mexico area (cf. Joan Carroll Cruz’ Mysteries, Marvels, Miracles in the Lives of the Saints, etc.).

Pope Pius IX does not say anything about ‘baptism of desire’ replacing the Sacrament of Baptism… or that such ignorant persons are thereby members of the Church because they are ignorant. We cannot read more into the Papal and Conciliar documents than what is already there.

 

[AnneElliot]

I did not know you were a theologian superior to Fr. Hardon.

Please. I never suggested such a thing. Just because I reminded you he’s a priest and not the Holy Father writing an encyclical letter or some such thing doesn’t mean I think I’m superior to him.

They did convert, but you skipped around the main point. The point was that Cornelius, while still a pagan, was considered “upright and God-fearing.” It is from this fact that the Tradition arose, upon reflection on the text, in the early Church, that it is possible for one outside the Church, if non-membership is through no fault of his own, to be saved. Father Hardon notes the existence of that Tradition in the life of the Church.

You cannot ignore the conversion. The adult who converts to the Catholic Faith is “God-fearing” and “upright” before his conversion… such is the God-given grace that led them to convert in the first place!

Converts (and catechumens) cannot be likened to those who have never heard the Gospel. The “God-fearers” in the Scriptures were Gentiles who believed in Judaism. It’s a great stretch to compare them to ignorant persons who know nothing of the Faith.

You are dismissing as mere theories that which has been taught by Popes, Councils, Saints and Doctors of the Church.

It is your contention that they have been taught by Popes and Councils. I have never seen a Papal or Conciliar document mention ‘baptism of desire’. If you have a Papal or Conciliar text that explicitly teaches baptism of desire, by all means, produce it here and I will stand corrected.

St. Thomas and others did teach the the baptism of desire, and generally in the context of catechumens, as they were accustomed to teach cautiously on the topic of salvation outside the Church. Strictly speaking, by what is required, i.e. the three conditions I mentioned in an earlier post, for a person to be a member of the Church, un-baptized catechumens are not yet members of the Church. Hence, we have here the clear possibility of salvation outside the Church due to “God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly, (St Thomas).”

However, we cannot be certain of the fate of a catechumen who dies without the Sacrament of Baptism…

Council of Braga, Sacrorum Conciliorum, vol 9 pg 774:
“Neither commemoration nor chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.”

In principle, there is no sound theological reason to limit the baptism of desire to catechumens, as the teachings of Pius IX have allowed for a broader interpretation.

I completely disagree with your conclusions from Pope Pius IX… he mentions no such idea.

When you open up baptism of desire to anyone, you strip (not only the necessity of Baptism, and membership in the Church) the necessity of explicit faith in Jesus Christ. There is no support of any kind for such thinking.

Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem
“…this faith is to us like a torch in the darkness, that it is the leader that we follow to Life, that it is absolutely necessary for salvation, since ‘without faith is impossible to please God,’ (Hebrews 11:6) and ‘he that believeth not shall be condemned (Mark 16, 16).’”

 

[cathdoki]

Come on AnneElliot. Check out that website. They use the same sources you do.

 

[AnneElliot]

Come on AnneElliot. Check out that website. They use the same sources you do.

Anti-Catholic websites quote Popes and Councils all the time. It’s nothing new.