No Salvation Outside The Church?

[itinerant1]

This begs the question… then whose fault is it?

It is not a case of question begging, whatsoever. Your accusation is impertinent.

The point is simply that it is not the individual’s fault. Period. End of story. You are quibbling.

(quibble: an instance of the use of ambiguous, prevaricating, or irrelevant language or arguments to evade a point at issue.)

 

[Third_Day]

I never insinuated that a person is always culpable for their ignorance (or anything else). You said, “through no fault of their own”. Well, if it’s not their fault, whose fault is it? Isn’t God in charge? Is He Provident and Omnipotent, or isn’t He?

Sometime today in China hundreds of men, women and children will die without ever knowing who Jesus Christ is. What will happen to them?

 

[AnneElliot]

And your statement about “truths fallen from heaven that the Church cherishes and teaches” is a self-serving flourish, one which functions in the context to gloss over the fact that you have chosen to adhere to a personal and indiosyncratic interpretation of Church dogma.

Do you deny that dogmas are truths fallen from Heaven?

 

[twb1621]

Miracles are not unrealistic. They happen every day. Multiple times a day, and at multiple locations. The Most Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Bread and wine are changed into the glorified flesh of the Savior. This is a miracle. It happens every day, multiple times a day… all over the world. It is not “unrealistic” to assert the possibility of the miraculous.

Baptism is necessary for salvation (as the Church teaches), and since God does not withhold the grace(s) necessary for salvation from anyone (as the Church also teaches) we must conclude that all persons are given the opportunity to receive the grace they need to be saved and this includes Baptism.

This is some sort of doublespeak that ends up being complete rubbish. The nature of dogma in defining Catholic teaching is not so that it has to be interpreted to say that it doesn’t say what it really says. Dogmas are clear. They are truths fallen from heaven that the Church cherishes and teaches.

There is a purpose we are told God knows the hearts of man. Speaking of those who have the capacity of reasoning to independently choose to be Baptized in the Body of Christ (His Church), the most fundamental element that must exist before all others is a sincere desire to be part of that body, even before Baptism takes place. Without that desire, the acceptance of Baptism is hollow and any grace normally instilled in the soul from Baptism is cast off.

It is first the devout desire that opens the door to that Body before we enter through Baptism. That devout desire is key to actual Baptism itself and for one who has or would have that devout desire and with it the intent to be Baptized into His Church once having learned Christ’s True teachings, it is the heart of that person God may choose to provide salvation even though Baptism has yet to take place.

Being a member of the Catholic Church is not validation solely on the claim of being Catholic after receiving Baptism, but rather confirmed with the intent of the heart to be a part of His Body, His Bride. It is that fundamental element that offers the chance of salvation without having reached Baptism, as is reflected in the salvation given by Christ to the “Good Thief”. Dogmas are not limits placed on Christ, they are the light of guidence man is to live by. This is the Divine Mercy.

 

[inkaneer]

Did you forget the other Papal documents which specifically condemned Luther’s heresies (including the Council of Trent)?!

Nope. Luther had the courage to appear for his inquiry. Despite several requests, Feeney, like a coward, did not.

Comparing Luther and Fr. Feeney is a bit of a stretch, I think, unless you are going to argue that Vatican II was convened to correct the errors of “Feeneyism”.

Now that is more than a stretch. However, the Second Vatican Council did address and further clarified the position of the Magisterium:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience— those too may achieve eternal salvation.” (Lumen Gentium, #16).

Okay… now we’re going somewhere… what are these errors regarding Baptism, justification, and sanctifying grace that Fr. Feeney was guilty of? Where are these errors condemned after Fr. Feeney’s promotion of them?

As far as the errors of Feeney regarding Baptism, justification and sanctifying grace I submit they are all involved in his strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam, nulla salus. Feeney accepted only water Baptism and rejected Baptism of Desire and Blood.
Again, unlike Luther, Feeney was too much of a coward to appear before the inquiry to defend his ideas so he was condemned for the obvious disobedience. They could have excommunicated him for other things such as his continuing to act as a religious after he was under indict. But how many times need one be excommunicated and is it possible to excommunicate a person after that person has already been excommunicated? Feeney was summoned but never appeared to fully explain and mount a defense of his ideas. So how could a formal condemnation be thus made?

By the way, for someone who claims they are not a Feeneyite you sure want to defend the man. The line from Shakespeare “Me thinks you protest too much” comes to mind here.

 

[AnneElliot]

Read the rest of Lumen Gentium #16
“Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the **missions **with care and attention.”

 

[itinerant1]

Do you deny that dogmas are truths fallen from Heaven?

What is your purpose for asking such a question? I suspect you wish to distract from the fact that you have been unable to justify your interpretation of “No salvation outside the Church”.

 

[itinerant1]

Interpolation #2:

“In the December 1948 issue of From the Housetops, an article appeared which clearly and unequivocally argued that there could be no salvation outside the Church. Although Father Feeney had signed none of these articles, it was clear that the (St. Benedict)Center and its leaders embraced the strict position that no one could be saved who was not a full member of the Roman Catholic Church.”

“On August 8, 1949, the Holy Office (now known as the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith) issued a Protocol condemning the viewpoint expressed in From the Housetops, vol. 3. (This volume included the December 1948 issue with the ‘no salvation’ article.)”

"The excommunication was applied automatically because of Father Feeney’s refusal to appear in Rome.

Both the Protocol of 1949 and the document of excommunication in 1953 make it quite clear that the sanctions imposed on Father Feeney and on St. Benedict Center are the result of a refusal to accept and obey the authority of the Church. There is no question that membership in the Church is essential for salvation. It is. This teaching was given by Christ. However,** the interpretation of this teaching is not in the hands of individual Catholics, even priests and theologians.**"

“In 1972, after a number of meetings, exchanges of letters, and negotiations, Rome lifted the excommunication of Father Feeney.”

Dissent From the Creed by Rev. Richard M. Hogan

 

[AnneElliot]

What is your purpose for asking such a question? I suspect you wish to distract from the fact that you have been unable to justify your interpretation of “No salvation outside the Church”.

Because you keep offering theologians interpretations of a dogma of the Faith. Is not the nature of dogma to *define *a teaching of the Church? Why do I need a theologian to tell me that “No Salvation Outside the Church” does not mean what it plainly says? Why do I need a theologian to interpret dogma at all? (I don’t interpret, I take the teachings of the Church at face value, they mean what they say and not what they don’t say)

Are you unwilling to answer the question about whether or not dogmas are truths fallen from heaven?

 

[itinerant1]

Because you keep offering theologians interpretations of a dogma of the Faith. Is not the nature of dogma to *define *a teaching of the Church? Why do I need a theologian to tell me that “No Salvation Outside the Church” does not mean what it plainly says? Why do I need a theologian to interpret dogma at all? (I don’t interpret, I take the teachings of the Church at face value, they mean what they say and not what they don’t say)

Are you unwilling to answer the question about whether or not dogmas are truths fallen from heaven?

No dogma is for anyone’s private interpretation, including yours.

And you are deflecting from the fact you deliberately misconstrued my earlier post. I point out your strawman fallacy, but you are dead set on skirting the issue, which is what your “falling dogmas” question is all about – smoke and mirrors.

 

[AnneElliot]

No dogma is for anyone’s private interpretation, including yours.

And you are deflecting from the fact you deliberately misconstrued my earlier post. I point out your strawman fallacy, but you are dead set on skirting the issue, which is what your “falling dogmas” question is all about – smoke and mirrors.

So, do you contend that dogma demands interpretation?

My question about dogmas being truths fallen from heaven is a legitimate question.

 

[itinerant1]

Because you keep offering theologians interpretations of a dogma of the Faith. Is not the nature of dogma to *define *a teaching of the Church? Why do I need a theologian to tell me that “No Salvation Outside the Church” does not mean what it plainly says? Why do I need a theologian to interpret dogma at all? (I don’t interpret, I take the teachings of the Church at face value, they mean what they say and not what they don’t say)

Are you unwilling to answer the question about whether or not dogmas are truths fallen from heaven?

Your assertion that you can just take Church teaching “at face value” is untenable. One cannot understand any statement without first interpreting it. That is how language works. Interpretation comes even more into play when considering higher subject matters, such as theology, in contrast to something more simple such as basket weaving. If you want to take the statement “I like lollipops” at “face value”, no one will argue with that. But the subjects of basket weaving and candy eating are not on the same level as theology, and should not be treated as if they were.

In addition, a number of solid reasons have already been given in this thread for why “No slavation outside the Church” cannot be given the superficial and “face value” construction as you are predisposed to give it.

In sum, you have demonstrated at least one thing here: that your understanding of the functions of language is naive.

 

[itinerant1]

So, do you contend that dogma demands interpretation?

My question about dogmas being truths fallen from heaven is a legitimate question.

My question about why you chose to misrepresent what I said about miracles trumps your evasive questioning. But you just don’t get it, do you?

 

[itinerant1]

So, do you contend that dogma demands interpretation?

Why do you ask? What I stated about dogmas was clearly stated. Why did you not take what I said at “face value”?? You are hardly consistent in that you only take a statement at “face value” when it serves your purposes.

 

[Third_Day]

=AnneElliot;7022039]Why do I need a theologian to tell me that “No Salvation Outside the Church” does not mean what it plainly says?

Anne I’m curious. Do you believe in Baptism of desire?

What do you believe will happen to those in China, India, Africa who have never heard of Jesus Christ?

Are the native American Indians that died centuries ago burning in hell because no missionary ever came to them?
Thanks

 

[AnneElliot]

itinterant, you have made it quite clear multiple times throughout this thread what you think of my intelligence and comprehension. No need to dwell on it, just pray that God grants me some smarts.

… It’s rather hard to have a discussion when you don’t answer questions. You say I have misconstrued your earlier post(s). Ok, I apologize for not understanding, so clarify your meaning for me… this is what I was trying to do in asking you to restate your position-- so that I don’t “misconstrue” the meaning of your post(s) again.

Taking a statement at face value is not superficial… let me give you another example, more serious than yummy candy. The fifth commandment is “Thou Shall Not Kill”. Can I take that at face value, or do I need to interpret it so that it says ‘sometimes it’s okay to kill’?

Can you answer the following questions for me (so that I don’t misconstrue what you’ve said)?

1. Do dogmas need interpretation? If yes, by whom?
2. Are dogmas “truths fallen from heaven”?

 

[AnneElliot]

Anne I’m curious. Do you believe in Baptism of desire?

What do you believe will happen to those in China, India, Africa who have never heard of Jesus Christ?

Are the native American Indians that died centuries ago burning in hell because no missionary ever came to them?
Thanks

I’ve answered these questions (/similar ones) previously…

Baptism of desire is a theory. It is not something that we can know.

I cannot judge the soul of another (thankfully, that’s not my job). God grants (and has granted, and will grant) every person the grace(s) s/he needs to find eternal life, even if such a grace might require a miracle. Saints have bi-located in order to preach the Gospel, Saints have raised the dead solely that they might receive the sacrament of Baptism. I have no doubt that since He has done it in the past, He will not hesitate do it again if necessary.

 

[Third_Day]

=AnneElliot;7022517].Baptism of desire is a theory. It is not something that we can know

. What do you make of this from the Council of Trent.

*Decree on Justification *Chapter Four
“This translation however, cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”

Laver of regeneration is a clear reference to baptism in Titus 3:5

What do you do with Aquinas?

“Secondly, the sacrament of baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire; for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized but by some ill chance he is forestalled by death before receiving baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that works by charity, whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen, ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate, but he did not lose the grace he prayed for’” (Summa Theologia III:68:2, cf. III:66:11–12).

I cannot judge the soul of another (thankfully, that’s not my job). God grants (and has granted, and will grant) every person the grace(s) s/he needs to find eternal life, even if such a grace might require a miracle. Saints have bi-located in order to preach the Gospel, Saints have raised the dead solely that they might receive the sacrament of Baptism. I have no doubt that since He has done it in the past, He will not hesitate do it again if necessary.

If you were to speculate would you say that Indians that were never preached to are burning in hell for all eternity because they were never baptized?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AnneElliot,

Your habit of taking things out of context and drawing truly unique interpretatins - apparently in alighment with Feeney - really needs to be addressed. Here is #16 of Llumen Gentium:

Read the rest of Lumen Gentium #16
“Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the **missions **with care and attention.”

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention. **http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

I submit that this paragrpah does not support Feeney’s heretical views previously condemned by the Holy Office, it does not endorse your view of ‘fault’ about those who have not heard of Christ or through NO FAULT of their own have not joined the Catholic Church. It certainly does not identify Baptism of Desire as t theory! We are to preach the Gospel to all - but, the Council clearly identifies that accomplishing this goal set by Christ is not possible - even though we are to reach as many as possible. If you still hold to your understanding than kindly point out where it is in this paragraph.

God bless.

 

[itinerant1]

itinterant, you have made it quite clear multiple times throughout this thread what you think of my intelligence and comprehension. No need to dwell on it, just pray that God grants me some smarts.

… It’s rather hard to have a discussion when you don’t answer questions. You say I have misconstrued your earlier post(s). Ok, I apologize for not understanding, so clarify your meaning for me… this is what I was trying to do in asking you to restate your position-- so that I don’t “misconstrue” the meaning of your post(s) again.

Taking a statement at face value is not superficial… let me give you another example, more serious than yummy candy. The fifth commandment is “Thou Shall Not Kill”. Can I take that at face value, or do I need to interpret it so that it says ‘sometimes it’s okay to kill’?

Can you answer the following questions for me (so that I don’t misconstrue what you’ve said)?

1. Do dogmas need interpretation? If yes, by whom?
2. Are dogmas “truths fallen from heaven”?

You have just disproved your own contention.There is such a thing as justifiable homicide, and in some situations it is even morally obligatory. So, my answer is the same; statements should not always be taken at face value, that is, if one wants to have some kind of correct understanding. The example of “Thou shalt not kill” is an excellent example of the need to interpret within the context. The context is the Torah. QED