S
- Status
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
I haven’t really done an in-depth historical analysis on that particular topic to know from such a such a Pope to such and such a Council to … these things became clearer in this particular order.
But, I do sense that the difference has not so much been one of clarification of understanding but on emphasis. A little more emphasis or light shining on the extraordinary means of entering the Church.
S
Sirach2
Guest
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm#4
JMJ_Coder, scroll down to Session 3, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason.
God bless your efforts.
JMJ_Coder, scroll down to Session 3, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason.
God bless your efforts.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Oh, that’s why – I was looking in chapter 2.
Here is the translation from that site:
Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
The keyword there is ``abandonment’’. As in, oh, we now better understand that Mary really wasn’t immaculately conceived but (fill in the blank).
The Church while growing in wisdom doesn’t abandon her teachings but builds on top of them. There is a difference.
A
AnneElliot
Guest
A
AnneElliot
Guest
The whole point is that the Church does NOT (and never has) taught such a thing… you seem to be suggesting that the Church now teaches this.
The only way to be a member of the Church is to be baptized. Ignorance is not Baptism. Desire is not Baptism. Blood is not Baptism. There are no substitutions. We believe in ONE Baptism.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
I am reminded of something Saint John Chrysostom, a Doctor of the Church, once said. He said this at the beginning of his fourth out of six long, in-depth sermons on the parable of Lazaraus and the Rich Man. He said:
You perhaps think that we have completed the whole; but I will not use your ignorance to deceive you, nor will I cease before I may depart with everything I can find. When a farmer has harvested the whole vine, he does not cease working until he has also cut off the stems of the bunches. Since, therefore, even now I see, as if hidden under leaves, some thoughts still concealed under the letters, come now, let us harvest these also very thoroughly, using this sermon in place of a sickle. Once a vine is harvested, it stands bare of fruit, with only leaves remaining; but the spiritual vine of the divine Scriptures is different. If we take everything we can find, the grater part still remains behind. Many indeed even before us have spoken on this subject, and many also perhaps will speak after us; but no one will be able to empty all its wealth. Such is the nature of this abundance: the deeper you dig, the more divine thoughts will gush forth, for it is a never failing spring.
You perhaps think that we have completed the whole; but I will not use your ignorance to deceive you, nor will I cease before I may depart with everything I can find. When a farmer has harvested the whole vine, he does not cease working until he has also cut off the stems of the bunches. Since, therefore, even now I see, as if hidden under leaves, some thoughts still concealed under the letters, come now, let us harvest these also very thoroughly, using this sermon in place of a sickle. Once a vine is harvested, it stands bare of fruit, with only leaves remaining; but the spiritual vine of the divine Scriptures is different. If we take everything we can find, the grater part still remains behind. Many indeed even before us have spoken on this subject, and many also perhaps will speak after us; but no one will be able to empty all its wealth. Such is the nature of this abundance: the deeper you dig, the more divine thoughts will gush forth, for it is a never failing spring.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
You are correct, that the Church has NEVER taught that there is salvation OUTSIDE the Church. But, the Church has also NEVER taught that sacramental Baptism is the ABSOLUTELY, ONE AND ONLY, POSITIVELY NO EXCEPTIONS way of becoming a member of the Church. It is, to be sure, the ordinary means of reception into the Church, but there are certain extraordinary means also.
A
AnneElliot
Guest
Where are these (supposed) extraordinary means taught?
Pope Pius XII declared in his encyclical Mystici Corporis that, “only those are to be accounted really members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters of Baptism and profess the true faith, and have not cut themselves off from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed therefrom, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority” (#22)
And, as I quoted earlier, the Council of Trent says the Church exercises jurisdiction over no one who is not Baptized (Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance (Session XIV), chapter 2).
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
S
SGT_ROCK_33
Guest
R
Returning_Home
Guest
I found this in Building on a Solid Foundation by Rev. Antoine Bakh, Daniel J. Daou, and Joseph Bakhos (page 83):
“Those who, through no fault of their own, do no know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in the actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation.” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, Vov. 21, 1964, no. 28, ch. 1, par. 16)
This the Catholic point of view and one that I have a hard time with in returning to the church, but that’s what it says.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
Incorrect; see my post quoting Vatican II.
A
AnneElliot
Guest
You must read the whole of Lumen Gentium #16. It is about the missions… those people MAY be saved, so the Church fosters the missions that they may actually find salvation. Vatican II does not contradict the Dogma.
A
AnneElliot
Guest
The Catechism is not an infallible source, and, as I mentioned above. There are no references for the supposed long history of BOD/BOB.
I am not familiar with their being upbaptized. My book on the Saints says that they were martyrs, it says nothing at all about baptism. Do you have a source for this?
Trent did not teach Baptism of Desire. The statement about the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism was in reference to the practice of forced conversions (which were condemned… look up the “conversos” or “moriscos”-- the Spanish were forcing the Jews to be converted, and they tried the same thing again years later during the founding of the Americas). You cannot force someone to accept the faith and be baptized.
Same as above. The Council of Trent did not take place in a void. The Council Fathers knew what was going on (and had gone on) in the world and took measures not to profane the Sacrament of Baptism by forcing it upon someone against their will.
A person who merely “desires” the Sacrament of Baptism is not, and cannot be said to be, incorporated into the Church. He cannot receive any of the other Sacraments (i.e., the Holy Eucharist or Confirmation) without Sacramental Baptism. Baptism of Desire does not suffice to admit him to any of the other Sacraments because he is not incorporated into the Church.
The Council of Trent no where includes the phrase “baptism of desire”. Nor can Trent be used to identify BOD as a teaching of the Church since such a stance involves reading into the Conciliar texts more than what is already there.
So, how can these (i.e., BOD/BOB) be said to be extraordinary means of membership in the Church when they do not actually incorporate one into the Church?
R
Returning_Home
Guest
I used it in exactly the same context as the source from which I took it: non-Christians attaining salvation. Its context notwithstanding, the quote stands alone and is clear in its meaning. There’s no mention of missions or missionary work whatsoever.
And it actually does seem to contradict dogma because when I was little, the church clearly taught that all non-Catholics go to hell. That was post-1964 and I was taught this in both Catholic Church and the Catholic school I attended.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
Forgive me if this goes a little off-track, but since Noah and Job were both perfect (Gen 6:9, Job 1:1), and the thief at Jesus’ side was saved, where did baptism or any other sacrament come into play?
2
2Chronicles
Guest
how do you know Job wasn’t baptized? or Noah?
as for the thief, he was in the very presence of God (Jesus). It seems to me that he suffered with Christ. Obviously the thief was not in a position to be baptized. god is not restricted by human limitations.
This man had the baptism of desire.
its just that baptism is the usual way people enter into Christ. It is the way God wants things done, but God knows it can’t always be the way He wnts.
2
2Chronicles
Guest
so you are saying that all the unbaptized go to Hell?
2
2Chronicles
Guest
why do you have a hard time with it?
- Status