Pagans need not convert: Can someone help me understand?

[hudson]

As far as Jews and Muslims, it has never been the teaching of the Church that they worship a piece of God. God cannot be divided into pieces. They worship God in his totality. What they don’t know is that God is a Trinitarian being. The fact that they don’t know this, does not mean that they worship only a piece of God. Abraham didn’t know that God was a Trinitarian being. He worshiped God. This is exactly how Muslims and Jews still worship God, as Abraham did. We would never say that Abraham’s worship was incomplete or that Abraham’s God was not our God. Abraham simply did not know the nature of God. Neither to Muslims and Jews. From their perspective, our idea of the Trinity is partitioning a God who is One.

Jesus Christ had not yet come in the time of Abraham. If Abraham had existed after Jesus Christ, I would certainly say he had an incomplete form of worship if he denied him. Wouldn’t you?

 

[hudson]

One of my favorite stories regarding converting others is Chapter 6 of John. Christ does not try to convert anyone in the audience. He delivers his preaching on the Bread of Life. Anyone who wants to hear it can do so and those who don’t want to don’t have to do so.

The thing is, he atleast told them the truth. It was up to them if they denied this truth. They would then be judged on that denial of the son of God. What it sounds like to me is now days we are told to not to even proclaim the truth as revealed by god that subsists in its fullness in the Catholic Church.

 

[JReducation]

Humbly noted, Melchior.
But I also would recommend you read Holy Mother Church’s historical position on this.
The book “What is Liberalism?” is the same one I recommended to Brother JR.

Chiefly among these religious duties is to love our neighbor as ourselves. This means first and foremost the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, the latter being more important.

Our Lord said “he who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
He did not mince words. He did not tell people why their current lives were admirable with seeds of truth but could be improved if they wanted to listen to Him.
He told us, point blank and frankly, that He is the ONLY way to the Father and to life everlasting. Take it or leave it.

Now I can agree that there is a great deal to be said about tact, humility and kindness.
There is a gentleness - at times - to be taken. But if some people don’t like to hear that our Lord is the only way, and through his Church (his one faith) the only way, it is ultimately and unfortunately their loss.
Lead first with all kindness and gentleness. If they should obstinately persist in sin or heresy, a more stern approach is necessary.
If they still persist, shake the dust from your feet and move on our Lord said.

The book that you’re recommending has to be read with great caution. I read. It’s a good book. However, it is not an authoritative representation of the Church. The only authoritative presentation of the Church is the one that comes from the Church herself and from those who conform to what the Church has to say for and about herself.

As to conversions, remember what I said. One has to look at the totality of Christian Tradition. It is not enough to look at scripture. That’s a very Protestant approach, one which Catholics should always avoid. Scripture in isolation from the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition can be and often is very confusing.

One cannot just recommend that people read scripture. One has to recommend the whole… Read Sacred Scripture, read about the missionary tradition of the Church and read what the current Magisterium has to say on the subject. Always keep in mind that the last word always belongs to the Magisterium.

Only the Magisterium has the authority to interpret and apply scripture for the general population. We don do this for us, but not for other Catholics. For other Catholics, we must give them what the Magisterium says, be it about scripture or something else.

For this particular subject, read the scriptures, the missionary tradition of the Church and what the current Magisterium has to say about missionary activity and about the target population that you want to convert. Then use the means and methods that the Magisterium lays down for us.

The methods and means may not be the solution. They may not work. However, we are not judged by what works or does not work. God will judge us by our fidelity to His Church and our obedience to Peter.

Also, bear in mind that it’s not just a matter of telling non-Christians that Jesus is Lord and Savior. Any non-Christian who has gone to school beyond 4th grade knows World History. Therefore, he knows Christianity’s claims regarding Christ. If that’s all that has to be said and done, the we can save our breadth. People have read about it in school.

We must remember that these are people of faith or skeptics. Either way, they need time to wrap their head around what Christians profess. The person of faith does not want to do what may be the wrong thing to do. This is good. We don’t want people to act contrary to their conscience. Such an action would offend God, because it means that the person could care less whether something is right or wrong.

The skeptic does not want to be sucked into what may be a crutch. There is such a thing as toxic faith, when religious beliefs are a crutch, not a way of life. He needs to see the faith lived day after day by those who are good role models. All of us are called to be good role models.
hudson;10287704:

The thing is, he atleast told them the truth. It was up to them if they denied this truth. They would then be judged on that denial of the son of God. What it sounds like to me is now days we are told to not to even proclaim the truth as revealed by god that subsists in its fullness in the Catholic Church.

This has never been said to us. What has been said to us is that there is a right way and a wrong way of doing it. We are being told how the Church wants us to go about it and we’re resisting. Which makes it look like we need to be converted to Catholicism first.

If we who are Catholic are resisting what the Holy See is telling us, how can we convince anyone to come into communion with Peter and to accept a faith that is built on the faith of Peter?

For this reason, St. Francis and St. Dominic told their friars that they were not to preach in places where the bishop or the pope told them not to preach, regardless of the need. Because without obedience to authority, their preaching would be hypocritical. They would be asking others to submit to a Church that they disobeyed.

Everyone remember this: avoid the Protestant approach to any question of faith, morals and Christian duty. We have already seen that it has not worked for our Protestant brothers and sisters. It is not sola scriptura. There is a tradition and there is a pope. The only one who can authoritatively interpret scripture and who can authoritatively tell us what is and is not Tradition is the pope.

Don’t just whip out a bible and start telling people how to fulfill their Christian obligations without consulting with the Magisterium’s statements.

 

[jpink1019]

I was just curious. I was hoping to know the name of the publishing company?

 

[hudson]

Humbly noted, Melchior.
But I also would recommend you read Holy Mother Church’s historical position on this.
The book “What is Liberalism?” is the same one I recommended to Brother JR.

I just bought the book. I hope it is as good as you say. Sounds like the good Father that wrote it in the late 1800s may have done well to see what was on its way.

 

[hudson]

If a modern day Catholic proclaimed to Jews or Muslims the story of the bread of life as Jesus did, that person would be wrong, correct? Makes no sense to me and I have read everything you have typed.

 

[JReducation]

I was just curious. I was hoping to know the name of the publishing company?

The book is excellent. There is nothing in it contrary to the faith. In fact, the author is very orthodox. The problem with the book is how it has been used against the Church by those who have an agenda that the author does not have.

At the time that the book was written the term was “liberalism”. Today, we would probably use the term “secularism”, because it places the problem in its proper light. Liberalism has taken on a different meaning from the meaning that the author has in mind.

In addition the author never claims that his writing is an authoritative representation of the state of the Church, nor that it can be taken to be such. He also makes no claim that Christian thought and the Church itself can be understood by just reading a single book.

Unfortunately, many people who lean toward extreme traditionalism have misused this great little book as a battering ram against the Church, when this was not the intent of the writer. Therein lies the danger in the book. The danger is that one may read it to find what one is looking for, weaknesses in the Church.

It’s like everything else, if you look hard enough, you’ll find them, because we’re human beings. The question is, should we spend all of our energy and time looking for weaknesses in our Church? It seems that such a position is as useful as looking only for the good and ignoring the bad. The truth will always come from the middle.

If anyone wants to read this book, I strongly suggest that one read it concomitantly with the many talks that Pope Benedict has given on relativism and secularism. Then the pieces fit well together.

 

[JReducation]

If a modern day Catholic proclaimed to Jews or Muslims the story of the bread of life as Jesus did, that person would be wrong, correct? Makes no sense to me and I have read everything you have typed.

You would be correct in what you’re teaching, as long as you teach it correctly. You would also be correct to tell it, if you were asked to do so by a Jew of a Muslim.

What the Church is saying is that she does not want Catholics to push Catholicism on Jews or Muslims. This has been an 800 year agreement made between St. Francis and the Sultan in Dalmietta that allowed the Franciscans to take control of the sacred sites in Jerusalem and later allowed the Holy See to create the Custody of the Holy Land.

There were two conditions that the Muslims laid down.

1. That Catholics not proselytize to them.
2. The custody be governed by Franciscans.

Pope Gregory IX agreed. This has been fairly “stable” for all of theses centuries. I place stable in quotes, because the conflicts between Jews and Muslims have often tried to suck the Christians to one side or another. Then the Church of Jerusalem broke away from the Catholic Church and became the Orthodox Church. Now there is an Eastern Catholic presence, Latin Catholic presence and Orthodox Christian presence. in the region.

Because of the complications and the risks involved to talks between the Jews and the Vatican and the Muslims and the Vatican, the Vatican is very hesitant to let anyone except Carmelites, Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits and Pallotines do any direct ministry among Jews and Muslims, other than the Eastern Catholics, of course.

In the Americas and Europe, the Church is equally cautious. The Church is a good mother. She knows her children. She knows that many of us can be overly zealous to the point of sabotaging her work. Not we would do so intentionally, but we can do a lot of damage accidently. Just take a look at how much damage Bishop Williamson’s comment caused a few years ago and how much damage Bishop Fellay’s recent comment has caused.

Fortunately for the Vatican, the Church does not have a normal relationship with the SSPX. The Jews are more trusting of the Vatican when the Vatican says that this is not a Catholic position and that it’s a sin for any Catholic to make such statements.

It’s not as simple as going over to Jews and Muslims and preaching to them. One has to know what one is doing, how to do it, when to do it, and where to do it.

 

[hudson]

One more question and then I am going to bed. What does the Athanasian Creed mean when it states as its first lines:
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

I do not believe the infallibility of this Creed can be called into question since it was included in its entirety in the infallible Council of Florence and is stated as such on Catholic.com as " It is included in the three infallible professions of faith—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed—and has been solemnly, infallibly taught by ecumenical councils.*"

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

Did not Christ say: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”?…

Being a practicing Catholic is the path most conducive to eternal life because we have the fullness of Truth. Isn’t the Church’s mission the salvation of souls?

Well said, Sperain. Very well said. This is exactly my sentiment. I have a coworker who is Protestant Reformed (not CRC, there’s a difference as he told me). We have discussed doctrinal issues before. I stated right up front, “look, we both share very similar moral convictions (he is anticontraception, for example). But let’s be charitably honest. You think you’re right. I think I’m right. No two ways about it. I care about your salvation and believe you need to become Catholic. So let’s not beat around the bush with things. We can be honest, we don’t need to lose our cools, and let’s be honest and sincere about finding truth.”
He completely agreed. Then I sent him a convincing video about veneration and devotion to the Blessed Mother. He hasn’t been able to reply.

Now I hand the baton to Our Lady and wait for her to pass him back to me.

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

In fact, de we even have heresies anymore?

Yes, we certainly do still have heresies today. They just aren’t called heresies any more. They aren’t called heretics any more, they are called our “fallen away” or “our separated brethren.” Yet we are being told even by the likes of Archbishop Muller of the CDF that they are not separated from us. That though they are not joined to Rome and reject key dogmas of the faith, they are united to us in the same baptism.




I think a fitting title of a book for today’s generation would in fact be, “When Did Heresy Cease to be Heresy?”

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

I was just curious. I was hoping to know the name of the publishing company?

Let’s just say it’s out of Chicago and affiliated with a major university.

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

Why do I get a sense that I’m speaking to a bunch of Protestants rather than Catholics. So far, all I have gotten back for my explanation has been bible citations…
We must be very careful not to give a non-Catholic, especially a Fundamentalist Protestant, the impression that the popes act and teach contrary to scripture or that they don’t understand the bible. When one leaves out what they are saying and simply quotes bible, one is taking a very Protestant approach, not a Catholic one."

I listed 16 papal encyclical quotes in my opening question…how is this only quoting the Bible? If you want to cite post-Vatican II quotes from the Holy Fathers to support / go in line with those quotes, please be my guest and do so. Unfortunately I had a hard time finding any which is why I didn’t list any. But what I can see you are clearly saying is that those older quotes certainly cannot contradict the last four (five really) Popes. So if you can find a quote that confirms that there is no salvation outside of the Church and that Jews and Muslims are heretics who do not worship the same God from a post-conciliar source, this would be a welcome presentation and help me build my case to present to the publishing company. Like I said, I can’t find any…

The book that was recommended on liberalism is a very dangerous book. It is not written by anyone with any authority in the Church, but it takes the Church to task as if it had authority to do so. I read this book.

These are good books to read, because one should always try to understand the other person’s perspective. Charity demands that we try to understand. These works are very helpful. But only those works that echo what the popes say about the Church, scripture, and tradition have any authority, because they are consistent with the voice of authority.

Let’s be careful that when we read, we don’t ascribe authority to writers who differ from the popes. That can be very dangerous. The writer ha a right to his opinion. But at the end of the day, the Catholic must think with the Church, not with the writer.

Read the opening Preface to the book, Brother.

Wherefore the Sacred Congregation has carefully examined both works, and decided as follows: In the first not only is nothing found contrary to sound doctrine, but its author, D. Felix Sarda merits great praise for his exposition and defense of the sound doctrine therein set forth with solidity, order and lucidity, and without personal offense to anyone.

The book has the imprimatur and the full backing of Rome and the Sacred Congregation for the Index of Banned Books. It only seems dangerous to you because unfortunately we have all grown up in a culture which exudes everything that book condemned. This country was founded on Liberalism and continues to spread its errors. If you have read Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and even Leo XIII and St. Pius X (who came during and after this book), you will find that absolutely none of their writings contradict anything whatsoever in that book. The author often cites the then Holy Father Pius IX, especially his Syllabus of Errors.

Also, the last time I checked, all priests carry with them some measure of authority in the Church. I wouldn’t be so bold as to proclaim and ordained man of God carries with him no weight, though I think I know what you mean insofar as he wasn’t a bishop, Curia and certainly not the Holy Father.

PS I wondered how long it would be before the accusations of being Protestant would come out. Odd how defending the faith and wanting to keep it holy and inviolate today means one is against the faith and a schismatic. Maybe that’s what our Lord meant in John 15:20…
shoot, I quoted another infallible Bible verse again. Dang Protestant mentality citing the inerrant word of God!

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

A piece of God? That’s the first time I’ve heard it from a Catholic.

The Church said their beleif is incomplete. I think it’s wise to rely on that and not on our own opinions.

Yes I think you called it out correctly, Choliks. In our Creed we say "I believe in ONE God, Father the Almighty…and in Jesus Christ his son…and in the Holy Spirit.
Like I quoted earlier, whoever hath not the Son hath not the Father. But this quote wasn’t well-received/sufficient as I have been told.
No such thing as pieces of God. That’s pretty much the source of/similar to all the early heresies (Arianism, Nestorianism, etc.)

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

There are many points in your post that we have to very gentle about. Many things that we were taught in the past were never official positions of the Church. They were the thinking of many theologians and at times even of popes, but they were never declared to be binding.

There is a danger to our souls when we start to thing that everything that we were taught was binding for all time. What that kind of thinking does to us is trap us on a time warp.

You mean like when Pope St. Pius V said the following about the Latin Tridentine Mass?

Quo Primum (1570)
By these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely…We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See…
Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Apocalypse 1:8 - I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.

Brother, I need to charitably ask that you read the definition of infallibility on NewAdvent.org or even the Wikipedia definition is sufficient for our situation:

Ordinary and universal magisterium
The ordinary and universal episcopal magisterium is considered infallible as it relates to a teaching concerning a matter of faith and morals that all the bishops of the Church (including the pope) universally hold as needing to be accepted by all the faithful. This aspect of infallibility only applies to teachings about faith and morals as opposed to customs and prudential practices. Additionally, the ordinary and universal episcopal magisterium applies to a teaching held by all the bishops at any given moment in history. Thus, even if a teaching on a matter of faith and morals is out of favor among the bishops of a later date, once it has been held by all the bishops to be accepted by the faithful as infallible, then it is considered infallible and unchangeably true.

There is a danger to our souls when we start thinking that what past Popes and Ecumenical Councils taught is subject to revision. This is modernism.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896, #9
It is then undoubtedly the office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity.

Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, 1864, #5
Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason - CONDEMNED

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 1928, #6,8
The Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles…If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy.

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950, #15
[Modernists] assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy

*Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896, #9
Origen writes: “As often as the heretics allege the possession of the canonical scriptures, to which all Christians give unanimous assent, they seem to say: `Behold the word of truth is in the houses.’ But we should believe them not and abandon not the primary and ecclesiastical tradition. We should believe not otherwise than has been handed down by the tradition of the Church of God” *

Pope St. Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, 1910
I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith.

Pope St. Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, 1910
I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.

Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, 1864, #80
The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization - CONDEMNED

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

In other words, it separates us from the current Magisterium and ties us to the previous Magisterium.

Brother, the Church is One. Christ is not divided. Just as our Lord is Alpha and Omega unchanged from the beginning of all time and until the end of time, so too must be His Church and His Vicar of Christ and the Most Holy Magisterium. They represent Christ on earth and cannot contradict each other. So their teachings, on matters of faith and morals (not pastoral or disciplinary action) are not subject to revision. We owe the same fidelity to the recent popes as we do Pius X, Gregory the Great, Leo the Great and St. Peter.

As has been said by many popes, tradition is one, but it is not stagnant.

Do you have a quote for this? Or a few of them (as you say many)?

Binding are revealed moral laws and revealed dogmas. Everything else is binding until another pope comes around and expands on it or pulls it completely. The danger is to forget that the past cannot bind the present pope. That steals authority from him and places it on someone who is no longer pope. Also, as St. Boniface said, no council, no pope, no saint, no doctor of the Church, not isolated scripture passage can bind any pope. Popes are only bound, again, by divinely revealed moral law and by dogma.

Again, the papacy, like our Lord, is One. Like the Church he watches over and defends. You are pitting popes against popes. Dangerous territory, indeed. That actually sounds Protestant. I saw an evangelical doing that to try to convince that the papacy is not infallible.

I don’t understand that alleged Boniface quote. The councils, Popes, Scripture and Doctors of the Church all have the same role: to safeguard and defend the faith holy and inviolate. It sounds like you are saying that any Pope who succeeds them is exempt from them and free to do what he wants? Or that he is only bound my dogma…but that those other four “organs” are not teaching that infallible dogma? This is not what is meant by “whatever you loose/bind…”

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

As to heresy, again we have to be careful. We’re looking in retrospect. Looking back, we’re well informed of all the heresies of the past and what the Church said about them. However, the people of that time had no idea what was and what was not being said about heresies. They didn’t have the information resources that we have today. To say that there are no heresies today and there were in the past is not fair.

Agreed on this! Totally agreed. Heresies come in all shapes and sizes, all flavors of crafty and wretched deception. Just search “Imposters” on NewAdvent.org for a TRULY disturbing history of these heretics and soldiers of Satan. And yet I think the question that was being posed is “why are things that used to be heresy (like all false religions) no longer considered or called heresy today?”

Today, between the internet and the news media, we are fed a lot of misinformation. We get pieces of the facts, according to the agenda of the blogger, reporter or organization. To say that there are no heresies or that the Church does not care about them is dangerous. It actually places us on the verge of heresy. Anyone who says that the Church does not care about heresy is speaking heresy.

Agreed on a lot of misinformation out there. But we certainly are NOT getting encyclicals, motu proprios or even general audiences telling us what to watch out for today. Except, that is to say, when the CDF tells us and when CNS tells us that the SSPX is misbehaving again. We don’t hear ANYTHING about Freemasonry any more like we used to. We don’t hear ANYTHING about false prophets of any kind. All men, since 1965, appear to be “men of good will” (which is in fact what Cardinal Ratzinger said of masons in the 1983 CDF document).

John XXIII stated openly that the purpose of Vatican II was not to deal with any particular heresy as with previous councils. The purpose was “ressourcement” and “aggiornamento.”
And Paul VI said it’s no longer about differences but about what we have in common:

Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam, 1964, #109
We readily accept the principle of stressing what we all have in common rather than what divides us…We would even go further and declare our readiness to examine how we can meet the legitimate desires of our separated Christian brothers on many points of difference concerning tradition, spirituality, canon law, and worship, for it is Our dearest wish to embrace them in a perfect union of faith and charity.

Compare that to:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, 1442
…Christians, with all discord between them banished, should come together in the same purity of faith.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 1928, #10
the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it… whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.
Nicene Creed
We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950, #11
…danger is perceived…concealed beneath the mask of virtue…There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an “eirenism” according to which,* by setting aside the questions which divide men**, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma…*

You can understand my confusion.

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

There are some very strong messages being sent around the Church between the Vatican and bishops, the Vatican and religious superiors, religious superiors and subjects, bishops and priests and laity and so forth. We are not privy to that information, because it’s shared on a right to know policy.

a.) What strong messages? I haven’t seen any…I just keep seeing heretical nuns spreading their lies on television and newsmedia misleading souls. I keep seeing liturgical abuses with absolutely no punishment in spite of reports to the Bishop.
b.) “Right to know” policy? Since when did the Vatican become the Secret Service, CIA or FBI? Since when did the faithful not have a right to know what to watch out for? To know what exactly the chief threats to their own salvation is during a given period? Shepherd is supposed to say “watch out for that wolf disguised that’s coming it at our five o’clock!” to his sheep. Not, “hey, Steve the sheep, there is a wolf coming.” Steve replies, “where?” Shepherd: “none of your business. just know it’s coming.” Steve: “What? Well can i at least warn Wes?” Shepherd: “no, he doesn’t have a right to know.”

As a superior, I share a lot of information with the bishop and other Church authorities about heresy and schism that I don’t share with the brothers or with any layman. The person who is looking will see the guilty party, but will not see what we’re doing or saying. That person does not have a right to know. If the guilty party wants to share it. That opens the door for us to share, as was the case with Father Corapi, the Maryknoll priest who was just dismissed, and Patrick Kennedy. They took their case to the public square, which then forced the authorities to speak up and tell their side. But there are others who never say anything. If they don’t say anything, then we can’t say anything. I recently dealt with such a case. No one knows what happened and what I decided and what the bishop and I discussed except the person involved. One ha to be careful not to assume that because one is not in the loop, nothing is being done about a problem.

I see what you are saying here on a specific example level. On a case by case, personal level. That makes total sense and I respect your wisdom for pointing that out. That becomes gossip and opens the door to all kinds of speculation and slander. I am referring to systematic issues; mass heresies; true enemies (like the Popes with the masons or Martin Luther…who oddly enough is now praised today for his reformative spirit. I wonder if he was bound in hell until the more recent Popes said he wasn’t such a bad guy after all?

 

[JReducation]

One more question and then I am going to bed. What does the Athanasian Creed mean when it states as its first lines:
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

I do not believe the infallibility of this Creed can be called into question since it was included in its entirety in the infallible Council of Florence and is stated as such on Catholic.com as " It is included in the three infallible professions of faith—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed—and has been solemnly, infallibly taught by ecumenical councils.*"

The Creed does not contain error, though the creed was not infallibly decreed. There was no need to do so, because it was not in question. However, as time passes, the Church better understands herself. As Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict have written. We find shadows of the Catholic faith outside of the physical boundaries of the Church. Those are definite Catholic beliefs.

These shadows are the means that Christ uses to save those non-Catholics and non-Christians who sincerely seek salvation. Salvation comes through the Church, not despite the Church, without the Church or outside of the Church. The person may be physically outside of the Church, but what he holds to be true is actually part of the faith of the Church. As to how God does the rest will remain a mystery, at least for the time being.

The dogma of “outside the Church there is no salvation remains intact”. The person may be outside the Church because he was born there. But the saving grace that he finds comes from within the Church and it extends outward. Today, the Church understands more clearly that what does not exist outside of the Church is salvation, not people. There are many people outside of the physical Church. Salvation comes to them from the Church. This is made possible by the transcendent dimension of the Church. The Church is both temporal and transcendent. She can extend outward, because truth has no boundaries. Truth is truth weather it’s spoken by a Catholic or a Hindu. Just a quick example, “Thou shalt not kill”. This is true no matter who says it. It is not less true, because it is believed by a Jew or a Buddhist. It is not less Catholic either. This great truth entered the world through Christ.

Yes, we certainly do still have heresies today. They just aren’t called heresies any more.

Who said that?

They aren’t called heretics any more, they are called our “fallen away” or “our separated brethren.”

 

[JReducation]

So if you can find a quote that confirms that there is no salvation outside of the Church

Did you red Nostra Aetate?
**
. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.**
**
The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: “theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church’s main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ’s Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.

As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and “serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Soph. 3:9).(12)

Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.
**

The Church teaches us that Jews and Muslims are neither heretics nor pagans and encorages us to recognize what we have in common.
**
This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church,** for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

Just a few months ago, Pope Benedict said loudly and clearly that there are no errors in Nostra Aetate.

Read the opening Preface to the book, Brother.

Actually, it’s not the same.