Salvation doctrine clarified

[OraLabora]

Thirdly, you may or may not have meant this, but I find your accusation that people are placing limits on God or that we believe we are part of some exclusive club to be very regretful. Showing what the Church has always taught so that a person who had a misunderstanding of the doctrine can come to terms with it, and reiterating the position that doctrines did not and cannot change in Vatican II, is not placing limits on God.

Maybe I misinterpreted the intent, I can’t be sure, but saying who can and cannot be saved sure sounds to me like we may be taking it a level or two beyond our pay grade. Understand that this is a very touchy point for me; I’m married to a Protestant woman that I love to death and who is holier than many Catholics I know; moreover my beloved late father was Anglican. When I read people taking a very narrow interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, I find it very hurtful. I hope I will be reunited with my family in heaven some day, and I wish people would spend less time arguing doctrine and more time simply living their faith. I can say this as someone who formerly used to love arguing doctrine. The Benedictines, who almost never discuss doctrine, set me straight on that.

I don’t really want to get into the debate, and will recuse myself from the discussion (and from most “arguments” on this forum as I’m beginning to find them counter-productive and an obstacle to my faith if not an occasion of sin).

 

[DJLake]

Understand that this is a very touchy point for me; I’m married to a Protestant woman that I love to death and who is holier than many Catholics I know; moreover my beloved late father was Anglican. When I read people taking a very narrow interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, I find it very hurtful.

You are right, I have no doubt! Where do we get our sense of goodness and fairness if not from God, who is all-good, all-loving, all-holy. The God who suffered and died for us, who cried when Lazarus died, who healed the sick, is not a god who is going to condemn innocent people! The God who spoke in no uncertain terms about the fate of those who scandalize a child is not the god who will condemn a baby to eternal torments intended for “the devil and his angels”.

While I am open to reconciling the old teaching with the newer No Salvation teaching, there is no way I will EVER believe, no matter who declares it on a stack of Bibles, that God punishes the innocent…and this is in keeping with present Church teaching.

 

[Sirach2]

Maybe I misinterpreted the intent, I can’t be sure, but saying who can and cannot be saved sure sounds to me like we may be taking it a level or two beyond our pay grade. Understand that this is a very touchy point for me; I’m married to a Protestant woman that I love to death and who is holier than many Catholics I know; moreover my beloved late father was Anglican. When I read people taking a very narrow interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, I find it very hurtful. I hope I will be reunited with my family in heaven some day, and I wish people would spend less time arguing doctrine and more time simply living their faith. I can say this as someone who formerly used to love arguing doctrine. The Benedictines, who almost never discuss doctrine, set me straight on that.

I don’t really want to get into the debate, and will recuse myself from the discussion (and from most “arguments” on this forum as I’m beginning to find them counter-productive and an obstacle to my faith if not an occasion of sin).

I may join you, Ora. The reflection today on the weeds and the wheat is giving me much pause to wonder whether these arguments are simply unwholesome bait. This comes up at least twice monthly, along with a few others that we know full well will just be circular and going nowhere.

For those who have never known the wondrous blessing of walking in God’s presence in holy recollection, nothing is lost. But for those who know it experientially, it is a precious loss traded for so scant a cause as a futile debate. You and I are called to follow where God has brought us, not where the world would take us.

May your beautiful wife be always continue to be a godly blessing to you in your home.

 

[DJLake]

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.

St. Augustine pointed out that the invisible distinction between “wheat” and “tares” also runs through the Church:

O you Christians, whose lives are good, you sigh and groan as being few among many, few among very many. The winter will pass away, the summer will come; lo! The harvest will soon be here. The angels will come who can make the separation, and who cannot make mistakes. … I tell you of a truth, my Beloved, even in these high seats there is both wheat, and tares, and among the laity there is wheat, and tares. Let the good tolerate the bad; let the bad change themselves, and imitate the good. Let us all, if it may be so, attain to God; let us all through His mercy escape the evil of this world. Let us seek after good days, for we are now in evil days; but in the evil days let us not blaspheme, that so we may be able to arrive at the good days.[7]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares

 

[Sirach2]

St. Augustine pointed out that the invisible distinction between “wheat” and “tares” also runs through the Church:

O you Christians, whose lives are good, you sigh and groan as being few among many, few among very many. The winter will pass away, the summer will come; lo! The harvest will soon be here. The angels will come who can make the separation, and who cannot make mistakes. … I tell you of a truth, my Beloved, even in these high seats there is both wheat, and tares, and among the laity there is wheat, and tares.** Let the good tolerate the bad; let the bad change themselves, and imitate the good. Let us all, if it may be so, attain to God**; let us all through His mercy escape the evil of this world. Let us seek after good days, for we are now in evil days; but in the evil days let us not blaspheme, that so we may be able to arrive at the good days.[7]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares

A very nice reflection, DJLake. There is much wisdom in this short writing of Augustine’s. I would imagine he knew by experience the difficulty in discerning the diffeence between these two plants. He did belong to a heretical sect at one time, remember?

 

[Mike_SoCal]

Romans 10:9

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

9 because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

These versus predate any Catholic Church teaching regarding salvation.

 

[agnes_therese]

I wish people would spend less time arguing doctrine and more time simply living their faith.

That seems to be exactly what the Holy Father is telling us. It’s not up to me (thank God!) to decide who is saved and who is not. As you said, beyond our pay grade.

 

[Lucky7]

Understand that this is a very touchy point for me; I’m married to a Protestant woman that I love to death and who is holier than many Catholics I know; moreover my beloved late father was Anglican. When I read people taking a very narrow interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, I find it very hurtful. I hope I will be reunited with my family in heaven some day, and I wish people would spend less time arguing doctrine and more time simply living their faith.

You seem to think that those of us who are spending time on “others” salvation don’t have similar issues as you do? My whole family is Jewish. My mother is 80. Who knows how much longer she will live. So you see I also have real concerns about this doctrine. This isn’t about my pitting us Catholics against the non-Catholics. I just want clarity and the TRUTH.

I will go back and read Jwinch’s posts as it seems he is more open to those of us with these questions. I just hope I don’t find them as arduous as DJ because that would make me feel even more overwhelmed.

 

[Sirach2]

"DJLake:

Understand that this is a very touchy point for me; I’m married to a Protestant woman that I love to death and who is holier than many Catholics I know; moreover my beloved late father was Anglican. When I read people taking a very narrow interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, I find it very hurtful.

You are right, I have no doubt! Where do we get our sense of goodness and fairness if not from God, who is all-good, all-loving, all-holy. The God who suffered and died for us, who cried when Lazarus died, who healed the sick, is not a god who is going to condemn innocent people! The God who spoke in no uncertain terms about the fate of those who scandalize a child is not the god who will condemn a baby to eternal torments intended for “the devil and his angels”.

While I am open to reconciling the old teaching with the newer No Salvation teaching, there is no way I will EVER believe, no matter who declares it on a stack of Bibles, that God punishes the innocent…and this is in keeping with present Church teaching.

DJ, I am very sorry that Jwinch saw fit to assume that you and/or others spoke with emotion, as if God made him judge of souls. Do not even entertain such thoughts, for very likely it is the Holy Spirit who is giving you solid conviction with regard to this doctrine. Just remember, that there were in excess of 5,000 Council Fathers in Vatican II who implored the assistance of the Spirit in forming their conclusions. And these holy men had to give a 2/3 vote for all doctrines to pass, plus be ratified solemnly by Pope Paul VI. There is NO WAY their teachings are erroneous. Two-thirds of 5,000 is a minimum of over 3,300 votes! Think about it.

Now unless you and I are star-gazing, the ones who promote this nonsense are agenda-driven by something other than the Holy Spirit, IMO. Rest with the assurance that these teachings were infallibly and solemnly promulgated in a Dogmatic Constitution.

One more point, these Councillors repeated the teaching in three other documents, not just Lumen Gentium, so if there was any chance of error, they certainly did not make a mistake four times. One of the most insidious attempts to destroy the teachings of this council was made recently in a report claiming that Cardinal Kasper stated these teachings were intentionally made to cause ambiguity. Of course, the statement was falsified out of context, but this is the type of thing we see happening constantly on the internet by unscrupulous souls who are bent on destroying the Church and teaching their own doctrine, for the ruin of souls, though not all recognize it as such. Weeds versus wheat.

 

[jwinch2]

Maybe I misinterpreted the intent, I can’t be sure, but saying who can and cannot be saved sure sounds to me like we may be taking it a level or two beyond our pay grade.

I fail to see how simply sharing documents which shows Church teaching, or quoting popes and saints consitutes saying who can or cannot be saved, but you are entitled to your opinion on the matter.

Understand that this is a very touchy point for me; I’m married to a Protestant woman that I love to death and who is holier than many Catholics I know; moreover my beloved late father was Anglican. When I read people taking a very narrow interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, I find it very hurtful. I hope I will be reunited with my family in heaven some day, and I wish people would spend less time arguing doctrine and more time simply living their faith. I can say this as someone who formerly used to love arguing doctrine.

I understand where you are coming from. My family is in the same boat as yours. This is why I pray so strongly for their conversion and for their souls, enroll them in Mass associations, etc. As for the rest, it is a hard teaching, there is no doubt of that. However, if presenting what the Church has taught regarding the doctrine makes me guilty of taking a “narrow interpretation” than I guess I am guilty as charged.

The Benedictines, who almost never discuss doctrine, set me straight on that.

I’ve been reading a number of Benedictine writers recently, in particular Blessed Abbot Columba Marmion, etc. and they didn’t seem to have any issue with proclaiming the doctrines of the Church, boldly and without equivocation. As for everyday conversations with monks, i’m sure you are correct. You have much more experience there than I do, but based on my experiences so far I would agree with your assessment.

I don’t really want to get into the debate, and will recuse myself from the discussion (and from most “arguments” on this forum as I’m beginning to find them counter-productive and an obstacle to my faith if not an occasion of sin).

I had to do that in regards to the political discussions. I understand completely.

 

[DJLake]

DJ, One of the most insidious attempts to destroy the teachings of this council was made recently in a report claiming that Cardinal Kasper stated these teachings were intentionally made to cause ambiguity. Of course, the statement was falsified out of context, but this is the type of thing we see happening constantly on the internet by unscrupulous souls who are bent on destroying the Church and teaching their own doctrine, for the ruin of souls, though not all recognize it as such. Weeds versus wheat.

If the earlier documents were more ambiguous, we wouldn’t be having these debates. Is it possible that the ambiguity could have been well intended so that a clarification of doctrine in the future would not appear to be a total reversal as the No Salvation doctrine seems to be?

 

[johnnyc176]

That seems to be exactly what the Holy Father is telling us. It’s not up to me (thank God!) to decide who is saved and who is not. As you said, beyond our pay grade.

But we are also called to evangelize. Why? And who are we to evangelize?

 

[Lucky7]

A good rendition of traditional teaching on the subject.

Sorry Jwinch, that did not make a bit of sense to me. It looked like a bunch of quotes/comments about what this or that person said melded together with no organization whatsoever.

 

[jwinch2]

Sorry Jwinch, that did not make a bit of sense to me. It looked like a bunch of quotes/comments about what this or that person said melded together with no organization whatsoever.

No worries on my end. After all, I didn’t write it.

 

[McCall1981]

DJ, I am very sorry that Jwinch saw fit to assume that you and/or others spoke with emotion, as if God made him judge of souls. Do not even entertain such thoughts, for very likely it is the Holy Spirit who is giving you solid conviction with regard to this doctrine. Just remember, that there were in excess of 5,000 Council Fathers in Vatican II who implored the assistance of the Spirit in forming their conclusions.** And these holy men had to give a 2/3 vote for all doctrines to pass, plus be ratified solemnly by Pope Paul VI. There is NO WAY their teachings are erroneous**. Two-thirds of 5,000 is a minimum of over 3,300 votes! Think about it.

Now unless you and I are star-gazing, the ones who promote this nonsense are agenda-driven by something other than the Holy Spirit, IMO. Rest with the assurance that these teachings were infallibly and solemnly promulgated in a Dogmatic Constitution.

One more point, these Councillors repeated the teaching in three other documents, not just Lumen Gentium, so if there was any chance of error, they certainly did not make a mistake four times. One of the most insidious attempts to destroy the teachings of this council was made recently in a report claiming that Cardinal Kasper stated these teachings were intentionally made to cause ambiguity. Of course, the statement was falsified out of context, but this is the type of thing we see happening constantly on the internet by unscrupulous souls who are bent on destroying the Church and teaching their own doctrine, for the ruin of souls, though not all recognize it as such. Weeds versus wheat.

Bold 1: what jwinch said is exactly true, he merely restates Church doctrine. Your responses to these things are based on emotion because youre picking and choosing between Councils and doctrines based on what you personally like/dislike. This is a modernist viewpoint that makes the individual the final arbitur of Truth, rather than God.

Also, why is it that someone repeating Church salvation teaching is “judging souls”, but when you say who is saved youre not judging souls (or “limiting” God)?

Finally, the Holy Spirit does not give people individualized or personalized “convictions” about doctrine. The Truth is the Truth as laid out in doctrine, there is not some added layer of Truth of that the Holy Spirit brings to certain people (this would be Gnosticism).

Bold 2: No one in this thread or in the Church disagrees with the validity of Vatican II. You are again setting up a straw man by inferring that those who disagree with you reject a valid Council. In fact, in this whole thread no one seems to be invalidating any Councils at all except you, as you seem to (name removed by moderator)licitly invalidate all Councils previous to Vat II. Vat II is not superdogma, as has been explicitly stated by numerous Popes, it does not invalidate any previous teaching, and in fact explicitly states that it serves only to transmit existing dogma, not supercede or create any new dogma. The Church has explicitly stated that Vat II must be understood in the light of tradition and all previous teaching. The hermeneutic of rupture has been explicitly condemned, and the Church teaches that we must read Vat II in a hermeneutic of continuity.

Bomd 3: Youre statement that some are “teaching their own doctrine, for the ruin of souls” is, to put it mildly, ironic. In this thread you have asserted that Church doctrine can and does change, indicated that you have the definitive understanding of what the doctrine really means, and presented Vat II as a superdogma.

In short you have presented your personal opinion on Church doctrine as being what the Church objectively teaches. This is teaching one’s own doctrine in place of Church doctrine, and I feel obligated to say something about it.

 

[Sirach2]

DJLake:

If the earlier documents were more ambiguous, we wouldn’t be having these debates. Is it possible that the ambiguity could have been well intended so that a clarification of doctrine in the future would not appear to be a total reversal as the No Salvation doctrine seems to be?

It’s not a reversal, DJ. It’s a clarification of the truth that was always in the Church, but many are misreading these documents and promoting dissension, alleging that the Council was wrong. Jesus told us “He who hears you, hears ME.” If we have any leg to stand on with finality, it is this. God will bind in heaven what the Church binds on earth, and there’s no way He will hold us responsible for doing what Jesus asked - obeying his Vicar on Earth. This is the most stable recourse we can possibly have.

With reference again to the Encyclical by Pope Eugene IV - “No one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life …”

If you read the Bull in its entirety, you will see that it presupposes that the Jews and heretics and schismatics in question were to be regularly instructed in the Catholic faith and treated charitably by Catholics throughout their lives so that they could not be invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Catholic faith. Session 19

**Decree on Jews and neophytes **
**
**The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the Holy Spirit, representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. This holy synod following in the footsteps of our saviour Jesus Christ, desires in deepest charity that all may acknowledge the truth of the gospel and thereafter abide in it faithfully. By these salutary instructions it desires to provide measures whereby Jews and other infidels may be converted to the orthodox faith and converts may remain steadfastly in it.

[Clearly, the Church did not condemn them to hell since they were obviously outside the Church. Ridiculous, isn’t it?]

It therefore decrees that all diocesan bishops should depute persons well trained in scripture, several times a year, in the places where Jews and other infidels live, to preach and expound the truth of the catholic faith in such a way that the infidels who hear it can recognise their errors. They should compel infidels of both sexes who have reached the age of discretion, to attend these sermons under pain both of being excluded from business dealings with the faithful and of other apposite penalties.

But the bishops and the preachers should behave towards them with such charity as to gain them for Christ not only by the manifestation of the truth but also by other kindnesses. The synod decrees that Christians of whatever rank or status who in any way impede the attendance of Jews at these sermons, or who forbid it, automatically incur the stigma of being supporters of unbelief.

So to the surprise of many staunch rigorists, the Church has a heart!

 

[Sirach2]

To McCall1981

I believe I asked that you chill out. You are obviously in attack-mode. I have no need to defend my posts to you.

 

[agnes_therese]

But we are also called to evangelize. Why? And who are we to evangelize?

The best way to evangelize is by living our faith, as the Holy Father is clearly teaching us.

 

[DJLake]

Bold 1: what jwinch said is exactly true, he merely restates Church doctrine. Your responses to these things are based on emotion because youre picking and choosing between Councils and doctrines based on what you personally like/dislike. This is a modernist viewpoint that makes the individual the final arbitur of Truth, rather than God.

Also, why is it that someone repeating Church salvation teaching is “judging souls”, but when you say who is saved youre not judging souls (or “limiting” God)?

Finally, the Holy Spirit does not give people individualized or personalized “convictions” about doctrine. The Truth is the Truth as laid out in doctrine, there is not some added layer of Truth of that the Holy Spirit brings to certain people (this would be Gnosticism).

Bold 2: No one in this thread or in the Church disagrees with the validity of Vatican II. You are again setting up a straw man by inferring that those who disagree with you reject a valid Council. In fact, in this whole thread no one seems to be invalidating any Councils at all except you, as you seem to (name removed by moderator)licitly invalidate all Councils previous to Vat II. Vat II is not superdogma, as has been explicitly stated by numerous Popes, it does not invalidate any previous teaching, and in fact explicitly states that it serves only to transmit existing dogma, not supercede or create any new dogma. The Church has explicitly stated that Vat II must be understood in the light of tradition and all previous teaching. The hermeneutic of rupture has been explicitly condemned, and the Church teaches that we must read Vat II in a hermeneutic of continuity.

Bomd 3: Youre statement that some are “teaching their own doctrine, for the ruin of souls” is, to put it mildly, deeply ironic. In this thread you have asserted that Church doctrine can and does change, indicated that you have the definitive understanding of what the doctrine really means, and presented Vat II as a superdogma.

In short you have presented your personal opinion on Church doctrine as being what the Church objectively teaches. This is teaching one’s own doctrine in place of Church doctrine, and I feel morally obligated to say something about it.

If I may ask, please stop with the wheat/weeds comments, they are not charitable.

Round and round this goes. First, an analysis of two apparently contradictory statements, and using one’s good conscience to discern which one is correct when it is claimed that both are true, has nothing to do with emotionalism.

It is not that one has presented a personal opinion on Church doctrine as being what the Church objectively teaches and teaching one’s own doctrine in place of Church doctrine AT ALL. It is a matter of discerning WHICH of the two conflicting doctrines makes more sense. To me, it is obvious. God does not punish the innocent. Lucky 7, pray that your Jewish family members, in being faithful to the old covenant will be lead to the new, not because they would otherwise have no hope of salvation, (not what the Church currently teaches) but because you love them and want them to find truth…the pearl of great price.

 

[johnnyc176]

The best way to evangelize is by living our faith, as the Holy Father is clearly teaching us.

Fine…but who are we evangelizing and why?