G
- Status
T
twf
Guest
I know this question wasnât addressed to me, but I think it is important to keep a few points in mind:
- The Church has always allowed for the possibility of salvation outside of Her visible bounds - take, for example, catechumens who shed their blood for Christ and are thus honored as saints, East and West, going back to ancient times - also, the idea of baptism of desire is not new
- Quotes like this must be understood within their historical contextâŚsimply taking a quote from a past pope or council divorced from the wider framework of Tradition and the living Magisterium is akin to taking a passage of Scripture, divorcing it from the Tradition of the Church, and proposing novel interpretations.
- Only the living Magisterium is competent to interpret, with any authority, decrees of the Magisterium
. By this I mean that while I believe the Church has not and can not contradict Herself in matters of faith and morals, we must understand historical decrees in light of what our current Holy Father and bishops teach.
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/dialogue-on-salvation-outside-church.html
D
dcointin
Guest
Thank you for your reply, and youâre certainly welcome to contribute anything to my questions. My concern in asking this is specifically the Catholic Churchâs position on those who are Orthodox, and have willfully rejected Catholicism. Could you comment on this?
P
PJM
Guest
My dear friend in Christ,
All the points you mention have been intrigal parts of roman catholic belief for ever; at least from our inception.
rs a result of Prgressive Liberties usuped after vatican II; Catholic Cateches was pretty much either an unknown or incorrectly taught charism. Thatâs trend is being reversed and we are getting back to a healthy and Holy pre-Vatican II Catechesis. THANK GOD.
There is MUCH I admire about the Eastern Churchs; by we are not borrowing your beleifs.
God Bless,
Pat
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Don,
I must add, however, that I have met a few Orthodox who, along with the misunderstanding, have a real hatred of Catholicism. I suspect those types will get their just reward from God for perpetuating disunity out of hatred.
Blessings,
Marduk
Thank you for the question. Iâve never understood such strongly worded statements that can be found in documents such as Cantate Domino and Unam Sanctam as diminishing the relevance and potency of the principle of invincible ignorance. So, to answer your question, I would interpret such statements in that light. Whoever these Jews, heretics and schismatics were that deserved the eternal fire, they were certainly ones who, with full knowledge of the Truth of the Catholic Faith, nevertheless willfully rejected her, or who, even without full knowledge, rejected her out of malice or affected ignorance. (I seriously donât know where brother Gurney has culled âthose in invincible ignorance deserve eternal hellfireâ from that statement.)
I wanted to comment on this section separately. I think some are inclined to misinterpret this statement (especially the highlighted portion) to mean that all Christians outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church are bound for hell. In truth, this portion of the decree refers only to those who leave the Catholic Church, which in fact the decree explicitly states (take note of the portions I highlighted in blue). Again, even this is mitigated by the principle of invincible ignorance. There are many who leave the Catholic Church having been misled into thinking she is something that she is not. As a great Latin Archbishop once said, âThere are not 100 people in the world who hate the Catholic Church for what she is, but many hate her for what they think she is.â
I can honestly say I have never met a single Orthodox person who opposes the Catholic Church for what she actually teaches. In that sense, I would not say they are actually rejecting Catholic teaching. I think many rejected the Council of Florence because of just such a misunderstanding (we can see how much misunderstanding there was just by reading Mark of Ephesusâ letters against the union).
I must add, however, that I have met a few Orthodox who, along with the misunderstanding, have a real hatred of Catholicism. I suspect those types will get their just reward from God for perpetuating disunity out of hatred.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
The Lord himself stated that only those who hear and reject will be condemned. Even in OT times, certain sins done willfully deserved death, while the same sin done inadvertantly deserved a lighter punishment.
The mitigating principle of invincible ignorance was established by God himself. The Catholic Church is simply following the teaching of her Master.
Blessings,
Marduk
P
PJM
Guest
Because in my youth is was discussed and taught and today itâs not PRIMARILY because of the questions raised by MILLIONS of abortions and the effect on their salvation of the aborted.
Limbo of the Fathers is still taught and a TRADITION of the CC. Limbo of the holy-innocents remains a hot topic discussion among Theologians. Father Hardon thought they they would through the Mercy of God benefit from Baptism of desire through their parents; If my memory serves?
Catholic catechis in total SUFFERED GREATLY in the post Vatican II era; which is why Father Hardon founded the Marain Catechist Lay Apostolate. To do what we can to fill the void.
God Bless,
Pat
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
How about Theosis? Doesnât Blessed Pope John Paulâs Theology of the Body introduce that into Western theology?
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Theosis/sanctification has always been a part of Catholicism? It was introducted day one from my reading of history? 
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I mean something like deification. I understand that there is a difference between East and West on this and the East emphasizes on this more on how we get to heaven, rather than the West which emphasizes on manâs imperfection and overcoming it.Theosis/sanctification has always been a part of Catholicism? It was introducted day one from my reading of history?
I havenât honestly read a lot on the matter. That is why I ask
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Great point. It would be nice if Hesychios, Mardukm, Harpazo, or Rawb would comment on this. Hopefully they will. Iâm not enough of an Orthodox inquierer even to speak to itâŚ
T
twf
Guest
Deification has always been central to Latin Catholic theology and liturgy, but yes the emphasis is different between East and West. There was a recent thread on this topic: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=556753.
In the East St. Athanasius said âGod became man so that man might become Godâ; in the West, St. Thomas Aquinas said " âThe only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.â
Same concept expressed with different theological constructs⌠see CCC 460 in particular.
H
hazcompat
Guest
post number 33 is consolation to a soul searching for the truth. post number 34 is for the soul who has found the fullness of truth who is considering leaving because another faith permits dangerous desires.
peace
peace
P
PJM
Guest
Interestering,
In that your {meaning the Eastern] position is a hersey; when was this position formulated and by whom?
God Bless,
Pat
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
What the East believes in Mary is the exact same thing as the West except for the Immaculate Conception itself, where it is defined that Mary was exempted from Original Sin. Its not that the East doesnât believe Mary was not conceived all-pure and unblemished from any sin. Its just that how the East understand âoriginal sinâ and manâs fallen nature, Mary doesnât have anything to be excused from in Eastern theology. That is why the IC doesnât work for Easterners.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
By that you mean that the East doesnât believe the Sin of Adam carries to modernity through the human race, right?
V
Vico
Guest
That which is lacking at birth is the âstain of original sinâ in the Latin terms, or the lack of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in other words. The consequences of âthe original sin of Adam and Eveâ inherited by being human still remain (we are inflicted), and there is no personal sin in the infant.
It is not necessary to do that which is not needed, so infants are baptised to give the gifts which are lacking. Saint John Chrysotsom states that infant baptism is done that infants can become the dwelling places of the Spirit.
Saint John Chrysotsom, Archbishop of Constantinople, writes in his Baptismal Instruction 3:6:
âYou have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.â
The preservation of the Blessed Virgin Mary was that she was endowed with these gifts from the first moment of her conception. It was Duns Scotus, that gave the Latin Church the concept of preservation, with regard to the immaculate concepton, after which there was a long debate, finally ending in the dogma being declared.
At the time the dogma refuted Pelagianism (Adamâs sin did not affect future generations, grace is only needed as a help since we can cooperate with Godâs grace on our own) and Semi-Pelagianism (humanity is effected by sin, but not so much that we cannot cooperate with Godâs grace on our own).
Virgin Mary, shared beforehand in the salvation Christ would bring by his death and was keep sinless from the first instance of her conception: she had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
D
dcointin
Guest
The Orthodox believe that we do not bear the guilt of Adamâs sin, but we do bear the consequences of it, which is a loss of the divine likeness, separation from the life of God, and corruption of the cosmos. Augustine theorized that we must be culpable for Adamâs sin since we bear itâs consequences, or else we would be suffering unjustly; since God is just, and cannot by nature act unjustly, we must bear responsibility for it. He supported this opinion with the Vulgate translation of Romans 5:12, which read: âWherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinnedâ [emphasis mine] (latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=6&c=5). This is a mistranslation however, the Greek reads: âbecause all have sinnedâ, which the Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges as the correct translation (scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#III). This difference leads us to different understandings of original sin. For the west there needs to be an immaculate conception or she would have been born with this sin and therefore led a sinful life, which means that Christ would have inherited from her a sinful nature. For the east, since she bears no sin at birth, there is no corresponding need for an immaculate conception; she lived a sinless life because she persevered in faith and love with the grace of God.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hi Vico,
Just some thoughts âŚ
⌠are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection. We know that our old self was crucified with him, so that our sinful body might be done away with, that we might no longer be in slavery to sin.
For a dead person has been absolved from sin.
If, then, we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.We know that Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has power over him.
As to his death, he died to sin once and for all; as to his life, he lives for God.Consequently, you too must think of yourselves as (being) dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus.
Roman 6:3 - 11
Saint John Chrysostom also says âŚ
Are we only dying with the Master and are we only sharing in His sadness? Most of all, let me say that sharing the Masterâs death is no sadness. Only wait a little and you shall see yourself sharing in His benefits. âFor if we have died with Him,â says St. Paul,
Cyril of Jerusalem does say âŚ
"⌠as many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death. Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.â
Saint Paul does say âŚ
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Gal 3:27
In the liturgy we sing âŚ
As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ!**
**ALLELEUIA!
** âŚ** We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
Saint Vincent of Lerins (d. 445AD)
I cannot sufficiently wonder at the madness of certain men, at the impiety of their blinded understanding, at their lust of error, such that, not content with the rule of faith delivers once for all, and received from the times of old, they are evry day seeking one novelty after another, and are constantly longing to add, change, and take away, in religion.
Saint Vincent of Lerins
Just some thoughts âŚ
One might assume so, but then what is needed?
In the light of Saint Paul, who saysâŚ
⌠are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection. We know that our old self was crucified with him, so that our sinful body might be done away with, that we might no longer be in slavery to sin.
For a dead person has been absolved from sin.
If, then, we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.We know that Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has power over him.
As to his death, he died to sin once and for all; as to his life, he lives for God.Consequently, you too must think of yourselves as (being) dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus.
Roman 6:3 - 11
Saint John Chrysostom also says âŚ
Are we only dying with the Master and are we only sharing in His sadness? Most of all, let me say that sharing the Masterâs death is no sadness. Only wait a little and you shall see yourself sharing in His benefits. âFor if we have died with Him,â says St. Paul,
we believe that we shall also live together with Him.' For in baptism there are both burial and resurrection together at the same time. He who is baptized puts off the old man, takes the new and rises up, just as Christ has arisen through the glory of the Father.â Do you see how, again, St. Paul calls baptism a resurrection?Cyril of Jerusalem does say âŚ
"⌠as many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death. Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.â
Saint Paul does say âŚ
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Gal 3:27
In the liturgy we sing âŚ
As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ!**
**ALLELEUIA!
circa 1300AD
Indicating that even 1,300 years after Christ, the church was not familiar with this idea.
** âŚ** We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
Saint Vincent of Lerins (d. 445AD)
In 1854AD, 550 years worth of debate later.
I cannot sufficiently wonder at the madness of certain men, at the impiety of their blinded understanding, at their lust of error, such that, not content with the rule of faith delivers once for all, and received from the times of old, they are evry day seeking one novelty after another, and are constantly longing to add, change, and take away, in religion.
Saint Vincent of Lerins
- Status