D
DJLake
Guest
Thank you!
- Status
S
Sirach2
Guest
There is confusion because laypersons read a document in their armchairs, or second hand from a website posting, and assume an individual Pope or Council is in error. There is no trust in the Church’s teaching, and people read these according to literalness, not according to how the Church originally wrote them. With mass media being so rampant, these errors spread like wildfires and therefore the questioning starts all over again.
The root is lack of trust in the Church, led by the Holy Spirit to teach God’s truth. I have seen devious scripts to oppose every sound explanation that good men offer. These can only be inspired from the pit of hell who would like nothing better than to have people fight against the Church. You asked for documents prior to Pius IX, which I will furnish in a separate post. But I don’t know that this will satisfy anyone, while the basic mistrust in both scripture and Church teaching is still a part of one’s being. I’m not so sure mass media has been good for those who have a tendency to doubt.
D
DJLake
Guest
Has this question ever been answered by the staff at Catholic Answers? I mean REALLY answered and the apparent contradictions explained? I plant to read the documents that were suggested here, but at this point the only glimmer of resolving this dilemma is that the older, harsh, statements need to be seen in a historical context, that they were inteneded for a particular audience, a particular place and time. Also, since the Church teaches that for a serious sin (one enough to condemn someone to hell) there must be in additon to grave matter,sufficient reflection and full consent of the will. It would make sense that no innocent person would commit the damning sn of being “outside of the Church” who lived a good and moral life (in other words, all those “clarifications” noted by Pope Pius IX and in documents after that time.) Because the criteria to commit a serious sin is underlying ANY objective evil (I would think excepitng those knowable by the natural law), it was implicit prior to being spelled out in later documents.
S
Sirach2
Guest
For Lucky7 >>>
For the Fathers, St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) sums up the Catholic understanding of this doctrine “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” by saying (De Baptismo, cap. 1): "It is de fide [of the faith and required to be believed by all Catholics] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit desire, by the grace of the Holy Spirit].
Originally Posted by St. Thomas from his Summa
Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom “contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism,” i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment.
Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; “which, with God, counts for the deed”.
newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2
The next post is an excerpt from Jimmy Akin teaching about the Council of Trent, as you asked for information prior to Pius IX, this should suffice.
For the Fathers, St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) sums up the Catholic understanding of this doctrine “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” by saying (De Baptismo, cap. 1): "It is de fide [of the faith and required to be believed by all Catholics] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit desire, by the grace of the Holy Spirit].
Originally Posted by St. Thomas from his Summa
Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom “contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism,” i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment.
Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; “which, with God, counts for the deed”.
newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2
The next post is an excerpt from Jimmy Akin teaching about the Council of Trent, as you asked for information prior to Pius IX, this should suffice.
S
Sirach2
Guest
**Private Judgment? **
What the radical traditionalists have forgotten is that they are not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is, and their personal interpretations may not go against the authoritative teaching of the current Magisterium.
The idea that they can by private conscience interpret centuries-old papal decrees puts them in the same position as Protestants, interpreting centuries-old biblical documents. The radical traditionalist simply has a larger “Bible,” but the principle is the same: private interpretation rules! This completely defeats the purpose of having a Magisterium, which is to provide a contemporary source that can identify, clarify, and explain previous authoritative statements, whether from the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, or itself.
Some radical traditionalists are not satisfied with the teaching of Vatican II and demand more proof that some who are not in formal union with the Church can be saved. We could cite the works of any number of popes prior to Vatican II to show this (for example, Pius IX’s allocution, Singulari Quadem, given the day after he defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854, or his 1863 encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, or Pius XII’s 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis), but to make short work of the matter, let us look at an infallible definition from the Council of Trent, whose teachings were formulated in one of the most bitterly polemical and least ecumenical periods in history, and which to radical traditionalists is an absolutely unimpeachable source.
**Implicit Desire **
Later Catholic teaching has clarified the nature of this desire and shown it can be either explicit or implicit. One has explicit desire for baptism if he consciously desires and resolves to be baptized (as with catechumens and others). One has an implicit desire if he would resolve to be baptized if he knew the truth about it.
A person who has a desire to be saved and come to the truth, regardless of what that truth turns out to be, has an implicit desire for Catholicism and for the Catholic Church, because that is where truth and salvation are obtained. By resolving to pursue salvation and truth, he resolves to pursue the Catholic Church, even though he does not know that is what he is seeking. He thus implicitly longs to be a Catholic by explicitly longing and resolving to seek salvation and truth.
Papal and conciliar writings in the last hundred years have clarified that those who are consciously non-Catholic in their theology may still have an overriding implicit desire for the truth and hence for Catholicism. Pope Pius XII stated that concerning some of “those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church . . . by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer” (Mystici Corporis 103).
Even though some radical traditionalists are disobedient to the papal and conciliar documents which teach the possibility of implicit desire sufficing for salvation, the Church has still taught for centuries that formal membership in the Church is not an absolute necessity for salvation. This was the point made by Trent when it spoke of desire for baptism bringing justification. The issue of whether desire for baptism saves and the issue of whether that desire can be explicit or implicit are two separate subjects which radical traditionalists often confuse. If we keep them separate, it is extremely clear from the Church’s historic documents that formal membership in the Church is not necessary for salvation.
**Justification and Salvation **
In the same chapter that it states that desire for baptism justifies, Trent defines justification as “a translation . . . to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God” (Decree on Justification 4). Since whoever is in a state of grace and adopted by God is in a state of salvation, desire for baptism saves. If one dies in the state of grace, one goes to heaven and receives eternal life.
As Trent also states: “Justification . . . is not merely remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby an unrighteous man becomes a righteous man, and from being an enemy [of God] becomes a friend, that he may be ‘an heir according to the hope of life everlasting’ [Titus 3:7]” (Decree on Justification 7). Thus desire for baptism brings justification and justification makes one an heir of life everlasting. If one dies in a state of justification, one will inherit eternal life. Period. This question of whether formal membership is necessary for salvation is thus definitively settled by Trent. It is not. Informal membership, the kind had by one with desire for baptism, suffices.
Excerpts quoted from Jimmy Akin, CAF Apologist
What the radical traditionalists have forgotten is that they are not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is, and their personal interpretations may not go against the authoritative teaching of the current Magisterium.
The idea that they can by private conscience interpret centuries-old papal decrees puts them in the same position as Protestants, interpreting centuries-old biblical documents. The radical traditionalist simply has a larger “Bible,” but the principle is the same: private interpretation rules! This completely defeats the purpose of having a Magisterium, which is to provide a contemporary source that can identify, clarify, and explain previous authoritative statements, whether from the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, or itself.
Some radical traditionalists are not satisfied with the teaching of Vatican II and demand more proof that some who are not in formal union with the Church can be saved. We could cite the works of any number of popes prior to Vatican II to show this (for example, Pius IX’s allocution, Singulari Quadem, given the day after he defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854, or his 1863 encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, or Pius XII’s 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis), but to make short work of the matter, let us look at an infallible definition from the Council of Trent, whose teachings were formulated in one of the most bitterly polemical and least ecumenical periods in history, and which to radical traditionalists is an absolutely unimpeachable source.
**Implicit Desire **
Later Catholic teaching has clarified the nature of this desire and shown it can be either explicit or implicit. One has explicit desire for baptism if he consciously desires and resolves to be baptized (as with catechumens and others). One has an implicit desire if he would resolve to be baptized if he knew the truth about it.
A person who has a desire to be saved and come to the truth, regardless of what that truth turns out to be, has an implicit desire for Catholicism and for the Catholic Church, because that is where truth and salvation are obtained. By resolving to pursue salvation and truth, he resolves to pursue the Catholic Church, even though he does not know that is what he is seeking. He thus implicitly longs to be a Catholic by explicitly longing and resolving to seek salvation and truth.
Papal and conciliar writings in the last hundred years have clarified that those who are consciously non-Catholic in their theology may still have an overriding implicit desire for the truth and hence for Catholicism. Pope Pius XII stated that concerning some of “those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church . . . by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer” (Mystici Corporis 103).
Even though some radical traditionalists are disobedient to the papal and conciliar documents which teach the possibility of implicit desire sufficing for salvation, the Church has still taught for centuries that formal membership in the Church is not an absolute necessity for salvation. This was the point made by Trent when it spoke of desire for baptism bringing justification. The issue of whether desire for baptism saves and the issue of whether that desire can be explicit or implicit are two separate subjects which radical traditionalists often confuse. If we keep them separate, it is extremely clear from the Church’s historic documents that formal membership in the Church is not necessary for salvation.
**Justification and Salvation **
In the same chapter that it states that desire for baptism justifies, Trent defines justification as “a translation . . . to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God” (Decree on Justification 4). Since whoever is in a state of grace and adopted by God is in a state of salvation, desire for baptism saves. If one dies in the state of grace, one goes to heaven and receives eternal life.
As Trent also states: “Justification . . . is not merely remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby an unrighteous man becomes a righteous man, and from being an enemy [of God] becomes a friend, that he may be ‘an heir according to the hope of life everlasting’ [Titus 3:7]” (Decree on Justification 7). Thus desire for baptism brings justification and justification makes one an heir of life everlasting. If one dies in a state of justification, one will inherit eternal life. Period. This question of whether formal membership is necessary for salvation is thus definitively settled by Trent. It is not. Informal membership, the kind had by one with desire for baptism, suffices.
Excerpts quoted from Jimmy Akin, CAF Apologist
D
DJLake
Guest
Is this infallible too? Nothing trumps a properly-formed conscience.
L
Lormar
Guest
Speaking only for myself, I agree that is my problem. How or when it started, I cannot tell you; but that it has remained with me is a fact. I don’t know what to do to get rid of it. As long as I have that basic distrust, I will be vacillating.
Edited to add that it doesn’t help being married to a person who plays the “devils advocate” no matter what “side” I lean towards.
S
Sirach2
Guest
You mean, is the Council of Trent infallible? Without a doubt. It was the very Council that put to rest all of the errors of the Reformation, and its teachings are foundational.
I’m not sure how you mean the second sentence, but natural law does play an important part in making those conscientious decisions, whenever there can be no access to formal catechetical teachings.
S
Sirach2
Guest
I totally understand you, and God knows your heart even better.
I’m still praying for you Lormar, as late as yesterday! Some day soon, let’s hope these doubts vanish. Liiving with a spouse who pulls you in every which direction is a trial in itself. May God strengthen you to resist error.
D
DJLake
Guest
The loophole I was looking for was not in the words of Scripture or in the current Magesterial teaching but in the harsh, condemnatory teachings that contradict them.
S
Sirach2
Guest
The ones that condemn souls to hell if they do not have a RCC card in their wallet saying they had water baptism?
I don’t think we can have it both ways, do you? Either the Church has the authority from Christ to teach in His name, or it does not.
Oops, I think you mean that the current Magisterial teachings are harshly condemned by those that contradict them. Is that right?
D
DJLake
Guest
Christ gave the Church authority to teach in His name, but if the Church teaches something different from what Christ teaches, then we have a dilemma. You have just pointed out teachings from Scripture that support current teaching, and that is good. But it does not sovle the dilemma.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Perhaps not. Jesus warned that there will always be weeds sown among the wheat, but to pay them no mind, since it could upset the wheat. Sometimes I feel like, why bother? Except that there truly are earnest souls who a torn by all of this controversy and can’t tell their right hand from their left. I guess it keeps some of us going.
You may find this comical, but I use a product called “Preen” to destroy the weeds before they germinate. The problem now is that it doesn’t work on the good seeds, and they are so prolific from last year’s plants, that they are worse than the weeds!
D
DJLake
Guest
Yes, this is true, and we are getting at something here. There are weeds indeed, and ultimately it is up to the Lord to separate the wheat from the chaff. I am thinking of St. Athanasius who was condemned by Pope Liberius when as St. Jerome wrote, “the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian”. That was an instance of the Church being overruln with weeds, but the Holy Spirit correcting the course.
As for Preen destroying the the weeds but not the prolific seeds, here is another topic of discussion, “What is a weed?” And the answer is, any unwanted plant! lol Another interesting aside is that with the advent of weed-control products, which killed clover as well as weeds, it became necessary to convince consumers that clover was a weed. Clover was traditionally considered an asset to a healthy lawn, and, in fact, clover seeds had been mixed with grass seed in the past since they crowded out weeds naturally.
J
jwinch2
Guest
If you look at the information provided above, and study the documents in context, I believe that you will see that the Church did teach and continues to teach baptism of desire, and baptism of blood. In addition, I believe you will come to understand what the Church teaches about invincible ignorance, the natural law, and those who are outside of the Church through no fault of their own.
Furthermore, please do not confuse what the Church has traditionally taught with what those such as Fr. Feeney believe. Traditional Catholics often get accused of having the same beliefs as Fr. Feeney when it comes to this area. However, this is an inaccurate presentation of the situation and if you read the sources cited above, you will see that this is not what has been taught traditionally.
Heck, even the SSPX does not understand the doctrine this way, and they most certainly would state that they have a traditional understanding of the doctrine of salvation and baptism. I’m in no way affiliated with the SSPX, but I do believe they present their case well in this situation in making it clear what they do, and do not, believe in regards to this issue.
sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm
sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm
sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/may_01_district_superiors_letter.htm
For the record, I am just as disturbed by the thought of those people I know (my family, friends, colleagues, etc.) who are outside of the Church not being saved as anyone else is. I am just as disturbed by the thought of those who have not recognized the truth of the Catholic Church not going to Heaven as anyone. However, the answer does not reside in pretending that the certain Church teachings do not exist, even the hard ones. The answer also does not reside in reinventing doctrines or taking them out of continuity with the Sacred Tradition of the Church in an effort to placate our emotions and absolve our consciences.
We have had several posts on this thread which were based upon emotion rather than an objective look at the teachings of the Church. There is a reason that appeals to emotion are a logical fallacy and that is because they are designed, intentionally or otherwise, to distract others from the discussion at hand and to use our emotions to convince us of something, rather than the strength of the argument being presented. I agree, it feels better to think of an increased likelihood of salvation for those outside of the Church. That, however, does not make it true. This fallacy of an appeal to emotions is particularly problematic when we try to apply it to those decisions that God will or will not make. We humans have a tendency to think that God loves as we love, that God’s love equals a human emotion or sentimentality. This is not true. Pope Francis has spoken about this on at least one occasion since beginning his pontificate. This is not to say that our emotions are bad, they are not. But, we do have to be wary of confusing our emotions for objective truth, and of assuming that God’s love is reflected in our human sentimentality.
So where does this leave us. Simple, let’s take positive steps to do something about it. We should evangelize and do our best to bring people into the Truth of the Catholic Faith so that they can have the benefits which are available in the superabundant graces which flow from the sacraments. This can be done in a non-triumphant or condescending way which makes the Faith attractive to those we are seeking to convert. We should pray for those who die outside of the Church, that God will have mercy on their souls and show them the truth of the Catholic Faith before they die, or even as they are on death’s door. We should do things like enroll family members, loved ones, our priests, heck even those people we disagree with or cannot stand, into Mass associations, so that their souls are being prayed for at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (there are several places who, for a minimal donation, will enroll people into their Mass association and pray for them, forever). There are any number of things which can be done to help the situation, and I am sure that others would have some great ideas that I did not mention.
At this point, I respectfully encourage you to take some time to read all of the information which has been provided (from everyone, not just me), and to go back and read the doctrinal statements (and the sources cited for them) in the order in which they were written. In addition, I encourage you to pray to our Blessed Lord and to the Holy Spirit about it, and to ask the intercession of our Blessed Mother and St. Joseph. I encourage you to ask for the intercession of the Popes, Church Fathers, and Church Doctors who wrote on the doctrines, that they will help you come to understand the meanings of what they wrote and declared. If you do that, I truly believe that you will be able to form your conscience on what the Church truly teaches in this area, and that you will see the importance of looking for solutions, rather than loopholes to the doctrine. In addition, I believe that you will come to see the false narrative of a difference in Church teaching pre versus post Vatican II. Finally, I also believe that you will come to some peace of mind, which seems to be a great deal of what you are looking for.
I am going to step out of the discussion at this point and leave you to it.
God Bless you.
M
McCall1981
Guest
M
McCall1981
Guest
Fantastic post, thank you!
This is basically a much better version of what Im trying to say.
S
Sirach2
Guest
How interesting. I had made a post about this many months ago, and I thought it might be good to share.
Plants of wheat and bearded darnel closely resemble each other, thus making it difficult to pull ‘weeds’ without pulling the immature wheat. It is when plants go to ‘ear’, or form grain, that the difference becomes apparent. That is why Jesus stated that both are better left to grow together until the harvest, at which point they can then be separated. Fortunately, the trained eye of the farmer is capable of telling the difference between them at the time of harvest.
Taking this parable to heart, we understand that the enemy makes no small effort to dispense many weeds. The spiritual harm that many of us will encounter if we try to rid the field of them is one of great distraction, following a “lesser good” and causing disquiet, troubling of mind, and inability to maintain recollection in our spirit – all of which are serious evils that effectively prevent God’s grace from bringing us to deeper union with Him, where in truth, our lives would produce really abundant fruit.
We believe we are doing God’s will as we try to oppose error, and the devil encourages. If we have occasional success, it spurs us on to greater zeal in combat, all the while, bringing in the wake afterwards, a great disquiet coupled often with anger and a severe distraction. Weeds are very stubborn plants, if anyone knows how difficult they are to pull up! Here’s a photo of the two plants.
D
DJLake
Guest
I have started reading some of the suggested articles and documents, and it is tedious and arduous. My thoughts are that it is incumbent upon the Church to make her teachings clear, and to clarify teachings that were clearly UNLCLEAR. Until I have the time and energy to read further, I am going to have to hold this dilemma in abeyance, and live with being the best Catholic that I can be while not being able to assent EVER to any prior teachings that condemned innocent souls to hell. As was the point of starting this thread, I was looking for a way to reconcile teachings that clearly are not saying the same thing. I am going to have to hold that the teaching that condemened innocent souls to hell was the one in error, as I can not hold both to be true at the same time.
I don’t think a Catholic should be expected to read through diffiuclt, ponderous documents and then be expected to interpret them in light of Church teaching, when that, too, is ambiguous, or, in the alternative, just accept and assent to what to a reasonable person is a clear contradiction.
I am happy that some of you have found peace regading this issue, but like Lucky 7, I have not. As I see it now, there can be no explanation except if it is shown that one point of view was the “official” teaching and the other was not, or that the Church can change some of its teachings that are not having to do with morals.
I don’t think a Catholic should be expected to read through diffiuclt, ponderous documents and then be expected to interpret them in light of Church teaching, when that, too, is ambiguous, or, in the alternative, just accept and assent to what to a reasonable person is a clear contradiction.
I am happy that some of you have found peace regading this issue, but like Lucky 7, I have not. As I see it now, there can be no explanation except if it is shown that one point of view was the “official” teaching and the other was not, or that the Church can change some of its teachings that are not having to do with morals.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Here is the statement I submitted previously:
“What is properly known as Revelation cannot be changed EVER, nor can a Motu Proprio such as I.C. or Assumption - never. We have to look at the nature of the teaching, whether it is of Revelation, discipline, or doctrine, and whether or not it is under the umbrella that it may change.”
Wasn’t that the gist of my posts?
This teaching has been there all along, since the days of Peter and Paul, but many have difficulty seeing that there is no contradiction - only a matter of correctly interpreting these documents with the mind of the Church. There is no problem, other than you have difficulty sorting out my intended meanings. I don’t want to go toe to toe and continue explaining myself. I have the distinct feeling we have been at odds in the past, which accounts for your stabbing at my words.Let’s just chill.
- Status