Salvation doctrine clarified

[jwinch2]

Unfortunately, the old documents are tight and shut leaving no room for exceptions. This to me is a bigger problem. I can never accept that an innocent person will be condemned to hell.

The Church has taught that those who are outside the Church but live upstanding lives without violations of the natural law or have sincere contrition from doing so, and who are sincere in their seeking of the truth could, through the mercy of God, have the truth of the Catholic Faith revealed to them. Then, they have a free will choice to accept this truth. Thus, through the Mercy of God, they could be brought into the Church and would be saved inside of her.

Would we condemn babies who through no fault of their own are not baptized?

There has been little in the way of doctrinal statements regarding unbaptized children, and much in the way of theological speculation. I have a tough time with this also, so I have to remember to distinguish between the two.

In the punishment of Hell theologians distinguish between the " poena damni," which consists in the exclusion from the Beatific Vision of <A,d, and the " poena sensus " which is caused by external means, and which will be felt by the senses even after the resurrection of the body. While St. Augustine and many Latin Fathers are of the opinion that children dying in original sin must suffer " poena sensus " also, even if only a very mild one (mitissima onuUum poena: Enchir. 93)~ the Greek Fathers (for example, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 40, 23), and the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that they suffer “poena danmi” only. The declaration of Pope Innocent III, is in favor of this teaching: Poena originalis peccati est carentia visionis Dei (= poena damni) aetualis vero poena peccati est geheIUlae perpetuae cruciatus (= poena sensus). D 410. A condition of natural bliss is compatible with “poena damni.” C (St. Thomas, De malo), S, 3; Sent.IId. 33q.2a. .2.

Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children’s Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod of Pistoia. D IS26.

Would we condemn to hell all those in the Eastern Churches who make the same claim as we, that they are the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church? Would we condemn all others of all religious who live good and holy lives? How about retarded individuals who do not profess the true faith? Do we condemn them as well? If not, are we more merciful than God himself>

Orthodox Christians have valid sacraments and a valid priesthood. So, while we maintain in the Catholic Church that they do not have the fullness of Truth, they do have the means for absolution of sins provided proper contrition is present. For Protestants etc. see what I stated above about those who are sincere in their seeking of truth. God can, in his mercy reveal the Truth of the Faith to them, at which time they can make a free will choice whether or not to accept it. However, if they have violated the natural law, which God has written in the hearts of men, God may choose not to reveal the truth to them. In this case, barring perfect contrition they may indeed be damned. Persons who are not capable of reason are not held accountable for things which they cannot understand.

Church teaching in this area can be hard, but there is a reason that it is the narrow gate which leads to Heaven and the wide road which leads to hell, even though it is often portrayed the other way in modern times.

God Bless,

 

[McCall1981]

The Church has taught that those who are outside the Church but live upstanding lives without violations of the natural law or have sincere contrition from doing so, and who are sincere in their seeking of the truth could, through the mercy of God, have the truth of the Catholic Faith revealed to them. Then, they have a free will choice to accept this truth. Thus, through the Mercy of God, they could be brought into the Church and would be saved inside of her.

There has been little in the way of doctrinal statements regarding unbaptized children, and much in the way of theological speculation. I have a tough time with this also, so I have to remember to distinguish between the two.

In the punishment of Hell theologians distinguish between the " poena damni," which consists in the exclusion from the Beatific Vision of <A,d, and the " poena sensus " which is caused by external means, and which will be felt by the senses even after the resurrection of the body. While St. Augustine and many Latin Fathers are of the opinion that children dying in original sin must suffer " poena sensus " also, even if only a very mild one (mitissima onuUum poena: Enchir. 93)~ the Greek Fathers (for example, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 40, 23), and the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that they suffer “poena danmi” only. The declaration of Pope Innocent III, is in favor of this teaching: Poena originalis peccati est carentia visionis Dei (= poena damni) aetualis vero poena peccati est geheIUlae perpetuae cruciatus (= poena sensus). D 410. A condition of natural bliss is compatible with “poena damni.” C (St. Thomas, De malo), S, 3; Sent.IId. 33q.2a. .2.

Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children’s Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod of Pistoia. D IS26.

Orthodox Christians have valid sacraments and a valid priesthood. So, while we maintain in the Catholic Church that they do not have the fullness of Truth, they do have the means for absolution of sins provided proper contrition is present. For Protestants etc. see what I stated above about those who are sincere in their seeking of truth. God can, in his mercy reveal the Truth of the Faith to them, at which time they can make a free will choice whether or not to accept it. However, if they have violated the natural law, which God has written in the hearts of men, God may choose not to reveal the truth to them. In this case, barring perfect contrition they may indeed be damned. Persons who are not capable of reason are not held accountable for things which they cannot understand.

Church teaching in this area can be hard, but there is a reason that it is the narrow gate which leads to Heaven and the wide road which leads to hell, even though it is often portrayed the other way in modern times.

God Bless,

Yeah, the key word here is “portrayed”.

 

[jwinch2]

No he wasn’t. The Church authorities justly condemned Father Feeney for his acts of disobedience against his superiors, not for holding a particular doctrine. Father Feeney was reconciled to the Church without ever having to change his views and I’m positive that even now all of his spiritual descendants have been reconciled to the Church and operate within ecclesiastical structures all the while holding to the same doctrines as they always have.

Father Feeney consistently disobeyed his Jesuit superior, his diocese’s bishop and then Rome. It was his actions that brought him to trouble in the end.

And I would just like to point out that some people are far too dismissive of Father Feeney. I’m not a Feeneyite and I consider their views to be inherently illogical because of the separation of Salvation and Justification. But they are not evil heretics that condemn poor innocent little peoples to the fires of hell. Father Feeney was once described as the greatest theologian in North America by Archbishop Sheen. The man was an intellectual heavyweight and deserves some respect.

Good summation. Thanks for that.

+Pax

 

[Jon_S_1]

I agree that it seems impossible to not hold the traditional position as it is so explicit! But how do you remain Catholic and hold the traditional position while assenting to a later opposing one?

I am not sure Vatican II can be said to have an opposing view of this. Although, many people over emphasize snd read into it much more than they should. If you read Vatican II plainly it says there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. They go on to speculate that God “can” save people outside due to invincible ignorance, but they do not say he will.

 

[Sirach2]

OP, this subject arises at least twice a month, with the same old arguments ad nauseum put forth by traditionists who fail to understand the teaching according to the mind of the Church, as She understands it, and they distort it completely according to their literal understanding as they interpret it.

The beginning of the Bull anethematizes a long list of heretical sects, and closes with the words that most trads take out of context with the entire meaning of Pope Eugene. Let’s read.
Quote:
Pope Eugene IV, the Bull
Cantate Domino, 1441
All these, together with their heresies, the Holy Roman Church anathematizes, affirming that there are two wills and two operations in Christ. The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

We find therefore, the mention of various heresies and heretics who have knowingly denied various truths of the Catholic Faith. All of these heretics mentioned in the Bull had contact with the full gospel and many (such as the Arians, Manichaeans, and Monophystes) were anathematized. All these sects have heard the message, but refused to enter the Church despite that fact.

Also, notice at the end, it says, that those who** shed their blood for Christ, **will not be saved, unless they did it within the bosom of the Catholic Church. This again reiterates that they have heard the gospel of Christ. They indeed can not be saved even if martyred because prior to this they had rejected the gospel.

In the same breath of the message of those who have rejected the true gospel, the Pope makes the statement about the pagans, Jews, etc… This takes as a starting assumption that they have (like the Arians, Monophystes, Ebionites) heard the message of Christ’s gospel. It is not talking about those who have NOT heard the gospel. The ones to whom these decrees are addressed are those that have heard the message and obstinately stay outside the Church. It is true that these cannot be saved.

Notice that this decree does not say, “If those pagans and Jews, etc. have never heard of the gospel, they can not be saved.” In order for the strict ‘No Salvation’ view to be correct, it needs to say that. It did not. If, after hearing the full gospel, they have rejected it, anybody who stays a pagan, Jew, etc. are indeed condemned to hell (just like the Ebionites, Arians, etc.) This is fully consistent with what the Church teaches now.

**Conclusion: **The assumptions behind the rigorist ‘No Salvation’ doctrine as certain trads understand it, are false.

1. In this decree there was no mention of those who have not heard the message. Nor of those who through no fault of their own, were born into noncatholic communities many years after the Reformation, which had not happened yet at the writing of this Bull in 1441. It addressed primarily heretics who chose to leave the Church.
2. The magisterium’s position (as stated in CCC 846-847, and which quotes Lumen Gentium) has thus not departed from the truths of the this decree.

 

[Zekariya]

1. The magisterium’s position (as stated in CCC 846-847, and which quotes Lumen Gentium) has thus not departed from the truths of the this decree.

I stand by my earlier post (post #2):

The Holy (infallible) Council of Florence has a strong statement as well:

‎"Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains." - The Council of Florence, Session 6 (July 6, 1439)

I believe that God can save anyone but, we have no evidence that God will act outside of what he has established. God can save a pagan but, we cannot know if he ever will choose to do so.

 

[johnnyc176]

If so, I think this is more of a spiritual issue, rather than a document issue. The relationship between God’s Mercy, and Hell, and salvation and such is hard to grasp for anyone. Maybe praying about it would be more helpful than reading documents. We all need to learn to submit our understanding to God’s understanding, and our will to God’s will, but it’s a very hard lesson. I struggle with it everyday.

This talk by Dr. Brant Pitre helped a lot for me…

salvationhistory.com/studies/lesson/justification_faith_and_works_of_the_law_romans_2-3

Also…I look to these two Bible passages…the parable of the workers in the vineyard…Matthew 201-16 and John 21:18-24…Jesus tells Peter how he will meet his end and Peter looks back at John and says ‘what about him’…lol…and Jesus basically tells Peter to mind his own business…lol. We don’t condemn or save anyone. God’s judgement.

I do still have trouble coming up with an answer for when a non Catholic questions this Church teaching and after reading the CCC to them they invariably ask…then why do I need to belong to the Catholic Church or why do I need the sacraments? Any help with that?

 

[Lucky7]

 

[McCall1981]

This talk by Dr. Brant Pitre helped a lot for me…

salvationhistory.com/studies/lesson/justification_faith_and_works_of_the_law_romans_2-3

Also…I look to these two Bible passages…the parable of the workers in the vineyard…Matthew 201-16 and John 21:18-24…Jesus tells Peter how he will meet his end and Peter looks back at John and says ‘what about him’…lol…and Jesus basically tells Peter to mind his own business…lol. We don’t condemn or save anyone. God’s judgement.

I do still have trouble coming up with an answer for when a non Catholic questions this Church teaching and after reading the CCC to them they invariably ask…then why do I need to belong to the Catholic Church or why do I need the sacraments? Any help with that?

Well, I would think the answer to this question is that they have been made aware of Christ and the Church, and are not invincibly ignorant, so they need the Church to be saved. If they’ve read the CCC and don’t enter the Church, they are explicitly choosing to reject salvation.

 

[Sirach2]

I stand by my earlier post (post #2):

I believe that God can save anyone but, we have no evidence that God will act outside of what he has established. God can save a pagan but, we cannot know if he ever will choose to do so.

Then how do you explain the gospels? Didn’t Jesus say to many, many pagans (non-jews), “Today salvation has come to your house!” It was not said that they were baptized, and He did not send them to the rabbis. I’m not denying the necessity of the sacrament, lest you think I am. Jesus said to them, “Go and sin no more.” He saw their heart, and it was sufficient for salvation. Do I need to list the multitude of examples, Old Testament and New? Or do you remember these scriptures.

It is highly offensive to put the Lord in a box and assume former teachings are etched in a time capsule. Brother JR has said many times on this forum that NO pope can bind another Pope; when he assumes the Office of Pontiff, his keys are binding. The problem is reading the literalness of old teachings without knowing the context or culture of the times for which they were written, and making the leap that the Church is somehow errant when She, by God’s design, further instructs us with their regard.

 

[Zekariya]

Then how do you explain the gospels? Didn’t Jesus say to many, many pagans (non-jews), “Today salvation has come to your house!” It was not said that they were baptized, and He did not send them to the rabbis. I’m not denying the necessity of the sacrament, lest you think I am. Jesus said to them, “Go and sin no more.” He saw their heart, and it was sufficient for salvation. Do I need to list the multitude of examples, Old Testament and New? Or do you remember these scriptures.

It is highly offensive to put the Lord in a box and assume former teachings are etched in a time capsule. Brother JR has said many times on this forum that NO pope can bind another Pope; when he assumes the Office of Pontiff, his keys are binding.

My full quote includes a quote of the infallible Council of Florence. No pope can change Church doctrine. Vatican II did not change Church doctrine. God can do anything. God can save pagan. We do not know if God will save pagans.

“Today salvation has come to your house!” This is true. And if they lived past Pentecost, they certainly did join the Church and therefore are no longer pagan.

 

[McCall1981]

Then how do you explain the gospels? Didn’t Jesus say to many, many pagans (non-jews), “Today salvation has come to your house!” It was not said that they were baptized, and He did not send them to the rabbis. I’m not denying the necessity of the sacrament, lest you think I am. Jesus said to them, “Go and sin no more.” He saw their heart, and it was sufficient for salvation. Do I need to list the multitude of examples, Old Testament and New? Or do you remember these scriptures.

It is highly offensive to put the Lord in a box and assume former teachings are etched in a time capsule. Brother JR has said many times on this forum that NO pope can bind another Pope; when he assumes the Office of Pontiff, his keys are binding. The problem is reading the literalness of old teachings without knowing the context or culture of the times for which they were written, and making the leap that the Church is somehow errant when She, by God’s design, further instructs us with their regard.

1. Becasue He, who is salvation, has walked into their house.
2. It’s offensive to imply that “former” teachings are somehow not still binding. There is no such thing as a “former” teaching, all teachings are Truth and immutable. Popes don’t bind other Popes but Church teaching does bind them. Every Pope is bound to the doctrine of the Church by definition. They have never broken Church teaching, and they can’t break it. “New” teachings never break “old” teachings becasue they cant by definition.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Then how do you explain the gospels? Didn’t Jesus say to many, many pagans (non-jews), “Today salvation has come to your house!” It was not said that they were baptized, and He did not send them to the rabbis. I’m not denying the necessity of the sacrament, lest you think I am. Jesus said to them, “Go and sin no more.” He saw their heart, and it was sufficient for salvation. Do I need to list the multitude of examples, Old Testament and New? Or do you remember these scriptures.

It is highly offensive to put the Lord in a box and assume former teachings are etched in a time capsule. Brother JR has said many times on this forum that NO pope can bind another Pope; when he assumes the Office of Pontiff, his keys are binding.

I will add I believe, and I am quite sure the Church teaches; that God is not bound to the Church or the Sacraments. He created these things as normative means to salvation. If you reject it your in trouble but if you just don’t know, he has the power to act outside the sacraments and he very well may, it has not been definitively revealed if he does, so although he can, we must focus on what has been revealed to us and that is knowing Christ and following him under the guidance of the Church and her sacraments.

 

[Megan7]

The Church has taught that those who are outside the Church but live upstanding lives without violations of the natural law or have sincere contrition from doing so, and who are sincere in their seeking of the truth could, through the mercy of God, have the truth of the Catholic Faith revealed to them. Then, they have a free will choice to accept this truth. Thus, through the Mercy of God, they could be brought into the Church and would be saved inside of her.

There has been little in the way of doctrinal statements regarding unbaptized children, and much in the way of theological speculation. I have a tough time with this also, so I have to remember to distinguish between the two.

In the punishment of Hell theologians distinguish between the " poena damni," which consists in the exclusion from the Beatific Vision of <A,d, and the " poena sensus " which is caused by external means, and which will be felt by the senses even after the resurrection of the body. While St. Augustine and many Latin Fathers are of the opinion that children dying in original sin must suffer " poena sensus " also, even if only a very mild one (mitissima onuUum poena: Enchir. 93)~ the Greek Fathers (for example, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 40, 23), and the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that they suffer “poena danmi” only. The declaration of Pope Innocent III, is in favor of this teaching: Poena originalis peccati est carentia visionis Dei (= poena damni) aetualis vero poena peccati est geheIUlae perpetuae cruciatus (= poena sensus). D 410. A condition of natural bliss is compatible with “poena damni.” C (St. Thomas, De malo), S, 3; Sent.IId. 33q.2a. .2.

Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children’s Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod of Pistoia. D IS26.

Orthodox Christians have valid sacraments and a valid priesthood. So, while we maintain in the Catholic Church that they do not have the fullness of Truth, they do have the means for absolution of sins provided proper contrition is present. For Protestants etc. see what I stated above about those who are sincere in their seeking of truth. God can, in his mercy reveal the Truth of the Faith to them, at which time they can make a free will choice whether or not to accept it. However, if they have violated the natural law, which God has written in the hearts of men, God may choose not to reveal the truth to them. In this case, barring perfect contrition they may indeed be damned. Persons who are not capable of reason are not held accountable for things which they cannot understand.

Church teaching in this area can be hard, but there is a reason that it is the narrow gate which leads to Heaven and the wide road which leads to hell, even though it is often portrayed the other way in modern times.

God Bless,

Thank you Jason, I always learn so much from your posts!

God bless you for your patience in dealing with others In this valley of tears…

Pax,

Megan

P.S: And it is a great topic/subject

 

[jwinch2]

Thank you Jason, I always learn so much from your posts!

God bless you for your patience in dealing with others In this valley of tears…

Pax,

Megan

You are most welcome Megan, but too kind by half. God bless you. You’re a regular ray of sunshine on this forum for me.

 

[McCall1981]

I will add I believe, and I am quite sure the Church teaches; that God is not bound to the Church or the Sacraments. He created these things as normative means to salvation. If you reject it your in trouble but if you just don’t know, he has the power to act outside the sacraments and he very well may, it has not been definitively revealed if he does, so although he can, we must focus on what has been revealed to us and that is knowing Christ and following him under the guidance of the Church and her sacraments.

This.

God has revealed to us, through Christ, scripture and the Church how salvation works. That is the part we know. He could potentially act outside of this normative plan of salvation, but hasn’t revealed the specifics of everything He actually does (probably for our own good). God has revealed Truth through the Church, but we don’t know everything about everything, we only know as much as we’re suppossed to know.

The Truths that have been revealed by God through the Church are true, period. Beyond that we can speculate and infer, but we don’t know for sure.

 

[R_C]

The Church does not interpret the doctrine so severely in modern times, and I never could understand how a Traditional Catholic could defend the earlier understanding and believe in a just and loving God.

Like this: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5)

I hope you have the patience to go over them, as it did take me some significant amount of time to bring all of that together.

But the question is not which belief is true, but how does a Catholic defend the doctrine that Church teaching does not change when it did change on this vital issue.

Church teachings do not change on matters of faith and morals. That is a fact. To say otherwise is not just erroneous, but heretical, because on matters of faith and morals the Holy Church is Infallible and Immutable. Some additional reading here and here.

Can the Church change its doctrines?

Question: “I was amazed to read recently where a Catholic priest theologian said that the Church is not infallible and that it has changed its doctrines. …] the Church can change its doctrines as times change.”

Answer: "No, the Church cannot change its doctrines no matter how badly some theologians may want it to or how loudly they claim it can.

The doctrines of the Catholic Church are the deposit of faith revealed by Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles, and handed down in their entirety by the apostles to their successors. Since revealed truth cannot change, and since the deposit of faith is comprised of revealed truth, expressed in Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the deposit of faith cannot change."

 

[McCall1981]

Like this: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5)

I hope you have the patience to go over them, as it did take me some significant amount of time to bring all of that together.

Wow

 

[McCall1981]

Then how do you explain the gospels? Didn’t Jesus say to many, many pagans (non-jews), “Today salvation has come to your house!” It was not said that they were baptized, and He did not send them to the rabbis. I’m not denying the necessity of the sacrament, lest you think I am. Jesus said to them, “Go and sin no more.” He saw their heart, and it was sufficient for salvation. Do I need to list the multitude of examples, Old Testament and New? Or do you remember these scriptures.

It is highly offensive to put the Lord in a box and assume former teachings are etched in a time capsule. Brother JR has said many times on this forum that NO pope can bind another Pope; when he assumes the Office of Pontiff, his keys are binding. The problem is reading the literalness of old teachings without knowing the context or culture of the times for which they were written, and making the leap that the Church is somehow errant when She, by God’s design, further instructs us with their regard.

Also, I will point out that when Br. JR says this he is referring canon law, not doctrine. All Popes are bound by doctrine, and thus are bound by each other in that sense. They are not bound by canon law, that they can change.

But of course they are bound doctinally, that is basic Catholicism.

 

[Sirach2]

Also, I will point out that when Br. JR says this he is referring canon law, not doctrine. All Popes are bound by doctrine, and thus are bound by each other in that sense. They are not bound by canon law, that they can change.

But of course they are bound doctinally, that is basic Catholicism.

His words:

Originally Posted by JReducation
*Quote:
4) If all Catholics believed something to be doctrinally true at a time and was taught in the church, can it be claimed later to be wrong? Yes, if the belief is incorrect. There are many things that people believe to be doctrine that are disciplines, theological statements, or commentaries on a doctrine. Often, people think that everything that a pope writes or a council writes is a doctrine or that everything that is in an encyclical is infallible. Very often, these writings are about an infallible belief, but what is being said about the belief can be a development of the thought, not necessarily another infallible statement. …] However, these explanations cannot contract the doctrine. They can simply be insufficient or unclear.

You may want to read the works of St. Boniface. He speaks very clearly on the authority of the pope over councils, even those of the past and over previous popes. To paraphrase him, no pope is bound by any decree of any council or any previous pope unless that which is decreed is explicitly contained in divine revelation.

No pope is bound by any doctor of the church, any saint or any miracle or an private apparition. All revelation comes from Christ. All law comes from Christ and it is written in the heart of the pope. That’s it in a nutshell. It’s a very long statement, which you may be able to find online.
*