Perfidious Non-Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gottle_of_Geer said:
Knowing about Christ is completely different from having justifying faith in Him. A lot of people have very sketchy ideas about Him - someone who thinks He was a good man unlucky enough to a come to a nasty end is quite capable of being ignorant of Him for all practical purposes. Having knowledge about Him can very well be a form of practical ignorance of Him - odd as that sounds, perhaps.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is the big gray area I was (implicitly) pointing to.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
In a couple other threads, Eugene_v_ said:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

What’s the story?
​
Click to expand...

Hello Bubba,

I admit that I didn’t read all of the previous posts so I might be repeating something. One way I make sense out of this is remembering that the Church is the Body of Christ and is, in a real sense, Christ. How can anyone be saved outside of Christ/His Body? The only way to be saved is to become part of Christ. In other words, to become part of the Church and be that way at the moment of death.

Cf. this passage from the CCC:

795 Christ and his Church thus together make up the “whole Christ” (Christus totus). the Church is one with Christ. the saints are acutely aware of this unity:

Let us rejoice then and give thanks that we have become not only Christians, but Christ himself. Do you understand and grasp, brethren, God’s grace toward us? Marvel and rejoice: we have become Christ. For if he is the head, we are the members; he and we together are the whole man… the fullness of Christ then is the head and the members. But what does “head and members” mean? Christ and the Church. (St. Augustine)

Our redeemer has shown himself to be one person with the holy Church whom he has taken to himself. (St. Gregory the Great)

Head and members form as it were one and the same mystical person. (St. Thomas Aquinas)

A reply of St. Joan of Arc to her judges sums up the faith of the holy doctors and the good sense of the believer: “About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter.”

Dan​
 
Dauphin said:
People innocently ignorant Catholic doctrine can be saved if they acknowledge the one God, obey the Natural Law which He has inscribed on the conscience of each man, and do whatever is within their capacity to follow His will. Such people will receive a baptism of desire and be implicitly united to the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Help me reconcile your statement with Pope Gregory XVI’s statement requiring all to “hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”
 
Binary said:
Help me reconcile your statement with Pope Gregory XVI’s statement requiring all to “hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”
Click to expand...
The Catholic Faith is TRUTH.

If one follows TRUTH, as best can be discerned depending on one’s personal situation, then one is following the Catholic Faith.

It is CONTRADICTING the Catholic Faith that garners one hell.

It is NOT NOT holding that which one can’t hold that garners one hell!

Does that help, and if not, WHY?

:shamrock2:
 
CatsAndDogs said:
The Catholic Faith is TRUTH.

If one follows TRUTH, as best can be discerned depending on one’s personal situation, then one is following the Catholic Faith.

It is CONTRADICTING the Catholic Faith that garners one hell.

It is NOT NOT holding that which one can’t hold that garners one hell!

Does that help, and if not, WHY?

:shamrock2:
Click to expand...
Your words match my understanding of church teaching. But this seems to be contradicted by Gregory XVI’s words. For even if I follow the truth as best as I can discern, can I be said to hold the whole of the Catholic faith? What does he mean by that?
 
Binary said:
Your words match my understanding of church teaching. But this seems to be contradicted by Gregory XVI’s words. For even if I follow the truth as best as I can discern, can I be said to hold the whole of the Catholic faith? What does he mean by that?
Click to expand...
The “whole of the Catholic faith” to one who knows only a portion of that whole is that part known, plus all of natural law.

If we don’t contradict that, and if we do we perform an act of perfect contrition (regardless of knowing what that means), then we’ve “held the whole of the Catholic Faith”.

How can it be true that one is held responsible for what one has no way of knowing? Natural law is a different case, because we’ve been given a “natural sense” of it and it’s therefore impossible to inculpably violate natural law. The public revelation of the Church is NOT knowable other than by evangelization, and if evangelization hasn’t “gotten to someone yet” then that someone can’t be culpable for knowing about it.

But, regardless of whether one is “evangelized” or not, one still sins by acting in contradiction of Catholic dogma (the non-natural law portion), though the “intentional” part of that sin being mortal is missing, meaning that there’s some purgation to pay for it, and probably some MAJOR purgation as it’s probable that that sin has become habitual.

(( Of course, there’s the distinct possibility that habitually doing this anti-dogma sin results in other “side-effects” which point rather well at that sin BEING a [major] sin, which when “seen” making doing that sin a mortal [culpable] sin, requiring perfect contrition. ))

:shamrock2:
 
CatsAndDogs said:
The “whole of the Catholic faith” to one who knows only a portion of that whole is that part known, plus all of natural law.

If we don’t contradict that, and if we do we perform an act of perfect contrition (regardless of knowing what that means), then we’ve “held the whole of the Catholic Faith”.

How can it be true that one is held responsible for what one has no way of knowing? Natural law is a different case, because we’ve been given a “natural sense” of it and it’s therefore impossible to inculpably violate natural law. The public revelation of the Church is NOT knowable other than by evangelization, and if evangelization hasn’t “gotten to someone yet” then that someone can’t be culpable for knowing about it.

But, regardless of whether one is “evangelized” or not, one still sins by acting in contradiction of Catholic dogma (the non-natural law portion), though the “intentional” part of that sin being mortal is missing, meaning that there’s some purgation to pay for it, and probably some MAJOR purgation as it’s probable that that sin has become habitual.

(( Of course, there’s the distinct possibility that habitually doing this anti-dogma sin results in other “side-effects” which point rather well at that sin BEING a [major] sin, which when “seen” making doing that sin a mortal [culpable] sin, requiring perfect contrition. ))

:shamrock2:
Click to expand...
Ok, you’ve reconciled these statements to my satisfaction. Thanks!
 
CatsAndDogs said:
How can it be true that one is held responsible for what one has no way of knowing? Natural law is a different case, because we’ve been given a “natural sense” of it and it’s therefore impossible to inculpably violate natural law. The public revelation of the Church is NOT knowable other than by evangelization, and if evangelization hasn’t “gotten to someone yet” then that someone can’t be culpable for knowing about it.
Click to expand...
Your words are reflected well in Vatican II’s Ad Gentes #7:This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, “who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:45), “neither is there salvation in any other” (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.”(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.
:o

The Hebrews 11:6 reference is worth a look here:Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

And I think Genesis315 in this thread has given enough examples that reflect a sentiment of “exceptions” to formal union with the Catholic Church. Or perhaps better said, union to the Church in extraordinary means. I agree that the possibility of being saved while not a formally recognized Catholic should not be watered down. We must evangelize, as Cats and Dogs, and Ad Gentes exhorts, in accord with openly bringing all persons into the Holy Catholic Church, which is His body.
 
Binary said:
Help me reconcile your statement with Pope Gregory XVI’s statement requiring all to “hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”
Click to expand...
It’s very simple. Pope Gregory’s statement was that the faith must be preserved whole and inviolate - we cannot alter that which we have received from the Apostles. We aren’t free to parse Catholic doctrine and decide for ourselves what to believe.

It would be completely ridiculous for him to have meant that a person must be intimately familiar with every article of Catholic doctrine. This would of course mean that all infants go to hell. It’s really the height of silliness to suppose that this is what he meant.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Your words are reflected well in Vatican II’s Ad Gentes #7:This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, “who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:45), “neither is there salvation in any other” (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.”(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.
:o

The Hebrews 11:6 reference is worth a look here:Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

And I think Genesis315 in this thread has given enough examples that reflect a sentiment of “exceptions” to formal union with the Catholic Church. Or perhaps better said, union to the Church in extraordinary means. I agree that the possibility of being saved while not a formally recognized Catholic should not be watered down. We must evangelize, as Cats and Dogs, and Ad Gentes exhorts, in accord with openly bringing all persons into the Holy Catholic Church, which is His body.
Click to expand...
I have a question…any and all are welcome to give their (name removed by moderator)ut. What is the Holy Catholic Church? Is it the magisterium and the laity? What separates the two…again, I’m not real sure I’m asking the right way.
 
dans0622 said:
Hello Bubba,

I admit that I didn’t read all of the previous posts so I might be repeating something. One way I make sense out of this is remembering that the Church is the Body of Christ and is, in a real sense, Christ. How can anyone be saved outside of Christ/His Body? The only way to be saved is to become part of Christ. In other words, to become part of the Church and be that way at the moment of death.

Cf. this passage from the CCC:

795 Christ and his Church thus together make up the “whole Christ” (Christus totus). the Church is one with Christ. the saints are acutely aware of this unity:

Let us rejoice then and give thanks that we have become not only Christians, but Christ himself. Do you understand and grasp, brethren, God’s grace toward us? Marvel and rejoice: we have become Christ. For if he is the head, we are the members; he and we together are the whole man… the fullness of Christ then is the head and the members. But what does “head and members” mean? Christ and the Church. (St. Augustine)

Our redeemer has shown himself to be one person with the holy Church whom he has taken to himself. (St. Gregory the Great)

Head and members form as it were one and the same mystical person. (St. Thomas Aquinas)

A reply of St. Joan of Arc to her judges sums up the faith of the holy doctors and the good sense of the believer: “About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter.”

Dan
Click to expand...

But - this must not be pressed too far; otherwise:​

  • the sacramentality of the Church is denied
  • as its eschatological, therefore, incomplete, character while on earth shows
  • & we make needless difficulties for ourselves by attributing moral enormities to Christ, as the logic of pressing it too far requires, until we have Christ the Inquisitor, Christ the Paedophile, Christ the Absentee Bishop, as the result of such an over-emphasis. :eek:
    The notion of the identity of the Church with Christ needs a lot of nuancing. It is a moral identity at most - not a personal one. The Church cannot without further ado be equated with Christ - & that is Catholic teaching, either explicitly or by logical necessity. If they were identical in that way, then all statements about Christ - at least after Pentecost - could be made about the Church. Which would lead to manifest absurdities & errors
 
NonCatholic said:
I have a question…any and all are welcome to give their (name removed by moderator)ut. What is the Holy Catholic Church? Is it the magisterium and the laity? What separates the two…again, I’m not real sure I’m asking the right way.
Click to expand...

You are 🙂 - as for answers:​

  • Both of them
  • Their respective functions in the Church
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

You are 🙂 - as for answers:​

  • Both of them
  • Their respective functions in the Church
Click to expand...
Thanks…follow-up questions Does the laity’s have specific function(s) and what are the magisteriums? ← did I spell that right?
 
NonCatholic said:
Thanks…follow-up questions Does the laity’s have specific function(s) and what are the magisteriums? ← did I spell that right?
Click to expand...
If you want the most recent treatment, read Lumen Gentium. It is very long but discusses the functions of each exhaustively (hierarchy & laity). p.s, the Magisterium is the Pope and the bishops united with him. (cf. CCC#100)
 
Here’s a little summary of this dogma and its relationship to the universal salvific will of God:

a) outside the Church there is no salvation
b) the Church includes all those united in the faith and hierarchical communion
c) Baptism is the door by which we enter the Church
d) heretics and schismatics are not in the Church
e) heresy and schism require a spirit of obstinance–so those Baptized persons innocently ignorant or mistaken concerning some truth, but disposed to the truth and unity, are not heretics or schismatics.
f) non-Christians are not in the Church
g) those that seek the truth above all else with an upright conscience, will not be permitted to perish inculpably by God; He will offer the necessary means of salvation (which includes being united to the Church) to them through ordinary or even extraordinary measures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top