Salvation for Catholics only

[Arnobius]

Originally Posted by Arnobius

This is actually an erroneous quotation It is all over the internet, but that just means it is copied by everyone.
Ya just can’t trust anyone these days…cept me of course.

I got mine from EWTN… you have another source to disprove mine?

 

[Sure]

And? I’m just wondering because I don’t think there is a person here who disagrees with this. I’m not sure who you think you’re shooting at with these “big guns”.

 

[Arnobius]

Not at all. You’re accusing me of judging the Magisterium of the Church. I’ve commented on merely Catechisms as being in error.
Hence you must think the Catechisms are infallibly Magisterial. They aren’t.

The Pope defined the CCC as a sure norm for the faith (See Fidei Depositum #3)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!

Who’s the “their” in interpretation? Some nameless theologian or a Protestant convert that hasn’t quite let go of his liberal Protestantism?

I was thinking the Protestants in general. I actually debate their false ideas about the Church, and this is the main issue… their citation of the Bible is always their interpretation of it. The point is showing to the others that their interpretation of scripture and scripture are two different things. Likewise your interpretation of Church Teaching is an “interpretation.”

“Statements of the Church” this is another one of those buzz phrases that blankets over the problem of discernment. How do you define a “statement of the Church” as opposed to “statements of Churchmen?”

I use Pastor Aeternus as my guide actually, and when the Pope or those he designates teaches authoritatively, even if part of the ordinary magisterium, is binding on the faithful.

I’ve just followed your line of thinking to a logical conclusion and found a contemporary corrollary in modern society.

Except your interpretation of my thinking is false

It’s Church teaching that all men are given suffficient grace for salvation (ie. to enter the Church and be in the state of grace when they die.)

And who has denied it? But the person who is taught that the Church is false and has never heard the true claims, or the person who has not encountered the Church cannot be held accountable for what he does not know.

We don’t even know if this hypothetical “no fault of their own” person exists or ever existed.

We also do not know if he does not exist… a simple answer for a simple statement.

However, because we do not know, we are obligated to preach the gospel, and trust in God’s mercy for the rest. Moreover, the statements of the Church on Invincible Ignorance are undeniable and if you deny them, you are denying the teachings of the Church.

I don’t hold anyone in particular as damned. I hold that when God makes a supernatural and miraculous “save” at the last minute. He doesn’t cut corners. He supplies the knowledge, gets the consent and provides the sacrament.

So… everywhere where the Church is not able to go physically, the people are going to Hell? Your ideas show themselves to be more and more out of touch with what the Church holds.

God does indeed provide the grace to those who need it. Whatever form He uses, we do know He is just and merciful and holds no man accountable for things he cannot control.

Why won’t you imitate the Church’s procedure on Luther and actually examine the writings of the person or group you are commenting on? The Church actually read Luther’s 95 thesis and came back with 40 documented errors.

I did read it, and this group are refusing to admit he made an error, instead alleging the error was on the part of the Church

And I’ve actually read some of Luther and there is a world of difference between him and Fr. Feeney or the SSPX. And JPII had the hubris to call Luther a “profoundly religious” guy.

I too have studied Luther, Feeney and the SSPX and the point is indeed that all three of them put their views above the authority of the Church, making themselves the magisterium.

You may assume people who disagree with you are not educated, but you are wrong and take things out of context. “profound religiosity” (not profoundly religious) does not mean approval.

“the view of the Church”…again with the cover all statement. Unfortunately I’m going to have to ask you again what you mean by this term.

I speak of the Magisterium or the official decrees, which is what commands my obedience.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Not at all. You’re accusing me of judging the Magisterium of the Church. I’ve commented on merely Catechisms as being in error. Hence you must think the Catechisms are infallibly Magisterial. They aren’t.

Uh, just a little more than merely Catechisms. Try reading the list I posted above.

We don’t even know if this hypothetical “no fault of their own” person exists or ever existed.

Probably because only God can truly understand the hearts and minds of men.

He supplies the knowledge, gets the consent and provides the sacrament.

Yes, and most of the Early Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church would disagree with you.

The Church actually read Luther’s 95 thesis and came back with 40 documented errors.

Yes, and the Holy Office read the writings and ideas of Fr. Feeney and documented the errors with his line of reasoning too.

And I’ve actually read some of Luther and there is a world of difference between him and Fr. Feeney or the SSPX. And JPII had the hubris to call Luther a “profoundly religious” guy.

Well I can’t say that I don’t disagree with this.

 

[SemperFidelis]

“Feeneyites believe”…Actually a lot of people lie about what “Feeneyites or LeFebvrites believe” Are you one of them?

Well, would a Feeneyite reject or not reject belief in Baptism of Desire?

How about a citation from the St. Benedict Center proving your assertion?

Do I need one? I think we all know what St. Benedict Center believes about Baptism of Desire.

I’ve found that all of the “quick answers” about Fr. Feeney fall completely to pieces when you actually read the arguments from more than one side.

Well I actually believe the opposite is true, as clearly does the Church, and it thought this way, way before Fr. Feeney “arrived on the scene.” I’ve read almost everything about this Dogma from both sides. At one point I even thought Fr. Feeney was right, but then I did a little more research.

 

[Sure]

No. I’m just saying that God is no liar, cannot deceive nor be deceived.

If His mercy is above all His works, it is no effort for Him to provide miraculous Baptisms for those that He elects to save that weren’t reached by mortal hands.

I don’t believe that God “misses” anyone in His grace or in giving them the sufficient opportunity and “let’s them slide.”

But we have no way of knowing how he provides an opportunity to be saved. He could just take them to Himself in heaven. He could baptize them with water. He could infuse them with knowledge and give them a choice. The point is we don’t know.

ALL we can say with certainty is that a Just God does not condemn innocents or those who have never had the opportunity to know him fully to hell. The mechanics of how he might bring those souls to Himself are beyond our knowing.

 

[SemperFidelis]

And? I’m just wondering because I don’t think there is a person here who disagrees with this. I’m not sure who you think you’re shooting at with these “big guns”.

Uh, have you read any portion of this thread? How about, GerardP, TNT, and the other posters on here who are perhaps unsure about the theology of one Fr. Feeney. BTW, clearly there is someone on here who disagrees with you.

 

[a_cermak]

A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.

You know that’s a mighty high hurdle to meet. I used to be Catholic. When I left the Church (for Episcopalianism on my way back to my childhood faith of Judaism), I obviously no longer believed it to be the true Church (for that matter, I didn’t and don’t believe there is a true Church or religion that is universally true for everyone).

 

[Teelynn]

This is what Limbo is for…

According to the International Theological Commission, just this year if I remember correctly they put out a document that shed a different light on limbo. They have rethought the whole concept. There was much discussion about this in the summer of this past year. They are now saying that babies not baptised that die would probably be saved, and see heaven. Not going to link it for you but I know that somewhere in this forum there was much discussion about it. Pope Benedict concurred with the document.

I have really no idea of course as do none of us, what really happens. All I can say is that I hope that God in His endless Mercy will understand that there are some souls that have never been exposed to the truth of His Church. Personally, I believe that there are many many places in heaven. Some much lower than others, some higher and a bunch in between. I believe Jesus told us; “In my Father’s house there are many mansions.”
We might be surprised how many people might be in heaven, but not in a particularly high place in heaven. Just my thought.

 

[jmcrae]

A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.

You know that’s a mighty high hurdle to meet. I used to be Catholic. When I left the Church (for Episcopalianism on my way back to my childhood faith of Judaism), I obviously no longer believed it to be the true Church (for that matter, I didn’t and don’t believe there is a true Church or religion that is universally true for everyone).

That doesn’t even make any sense. If there is a God, then He is what He is, and nothing else.

You can say that no religion on earth can actually know about God (the Catholic Church is the only religion that actually claims to know God), but you cannot say that there is no such thing as the religious truth about God. Even if it turns out that God does not, in fact, exist, this would be a one-and-only religious truth about God, and everything else would, therefore, be false.

He would not pop into existence for some people (with whatever attributes they were expecting of Him), and then pop out of existence, for other people.

 

[TMC]

Here is some more authoritative teaching on salvation outside the Church:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.

Wait, that’s from Lumen Gentium. That was written less than 200 years ago, so I guess I will be told that we are free to reject this teaching. Hard to keep track of the which teachings are mandatory these days. Coming from an Ecumenical Council or from the Pope doesn’t cut it any more, apparently.

 

[GerardP]

But we have no way of knowing how he provides an opportunity to be saved. He could just take them to Himself in heaven. He could baptize them with water. He could infuse them with knowledge and give them a choice. The point is we don’t know.

ALL we can say with certainty is that a Just God does not condemn innocents or those who have never had the opportunity to know him fully to hell. The mechanics of how he might bring those souls to Himself are beyond our knowing.

We do know that what has been revealed and infallibly defined by the Church is that water Baptism is necessary.

The work-around arguments do two things: They undermine the omnipotence of God and they undermine the necessity of belonging to the Church.

The errors promulgated now are that people are members of the Church who don’t even know they are members of the Church while they think they are members of other Churches.

The whole issue of “partial communion” and “anonymous Christians” is non-sense. It utterly distorts the truth of the matter and confuses Catholic and non-Catholic alike in the fullest sense of the word. (fuses contradictory notions)

I’ve been reading on and off a collection of essays and speeches by Cardinal Augustin Bea prior to and in anticipation of the Council. He sounds like Bishop Williamson of the SSPX in his plain language much more than Cardinal Kaspar who now has his job or even the Pope. The unnecessarily verbose formulations do a disservice to the truth and the Church.

 

[JohnGrey]

According to the International Theological Commission, just this year if I remember correctly they put out a document that shed a different light on limbo. They have rethought the whole concept. There was much discussion about this in the summer of this past year. They are now saying that babies not baptised that die would probably be saved, and see heaven. Not going to link it for you but I know that somewhere in this forum there was much discussion about it. Pope Benedict concurred with the document.

I have really no idea of course as do none of us, what really happens. All I can say is that I hope that God in His endless Mercy will understand that there are some souls that have never been exposed to the truth of His Church. Personally, I believe that there are many many places in heaven. Some much lower than others, some higher and a bunch in between. I believe Jesus told us; “In my Father’s house there are many mansions.”
We might be surprised how many people might be in heaven, but not in a particularly high place in heaven. Just my thought.

Per the XVI Council of Carthage, ratified by Pope St. Zosimus on the 1st of May A.D. 418:

Also it seemed good, that if anyone should say that the saying of the Lord, “In my Father’s house are many mansions” is to be understood as meaning that in the kingdom of heaven there will
be a certain middle place, or some place somewhere, in which infants live in happiness who have gone forth from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven,
which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For after our Lord has said: “Except a man be born again of water and of the Holy Spirit he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven,” what Catholic can
doubt that he who has not merited to be coheir with Christ shall become a sharer with the devil: for he who fails of the right hand without doubt shall receive the left hand portion.

 

[a_cermak]

That doesn’t even make any sense. If there is a God, then He is what He is, and nothing else.

You can say that no religion on earth can actually know about God (the Catholic Church is the only religion that actually claims to know God), but you cannot say that there is no such thing as the religious truth about God. Even if it turns out that God does not, in fact, exist, this would be a one-and-only religious truth about God, and everything else would, therefore, be false.

He would not pop into existence for some people (with whatever attributes they were expecting of Him), and then pop out of existence, for other people.

Why? Why could not a god choose to make himself known to lowly humans in distinct ways? Hinduism has a way of describing the gods having different visages by which they have encountered humanity.

Perhaps some personalities are geared to encounter the Divine in ways that are unique to them? Perhaps a legalistic mind would find comfort in the practice of one faith while an imaginative one would find comfort in yet a different faith.

When I say I do not believe that any religion is true what I mean is that no specific religion is universally true for everyone and perhaps by corollary, most religions are true for someone. I find my comfort in Judaism. It is the faith that makes the most sense to me. I’m not, however, going to try to convert all my friends to it (there’s not room in the mikvah anyway) because most of them already have a faith wherein they have found truth.

Now, if I had a friend that believed in Judaism, wanted to live as a Jew, was interested in Reform Judaism and lived in my area, I would likely try to convince him to become a member in my temple. Only because the more members we have the better our day school will be.

 

[GerardP]

Per the XVI Council of Carthage, ratified by Pope St. Zosimus on the 1st of May A.D. 418:

I think it’s indicative of the crisis in the Church in that the modern formulations in the Catechism as well as in the Conciliar and post-conciliar documents lead well-intentioned Catholics logically to conclusions that have been thought of centuries ago and condemned magisterially by the Church.

All it takes is a little wiggle room and a modernist can teach someone that the Church teaches “this” when in reality the Church had already condemned it.

I often wonder if it’s diabolical disorientation or willful malevolence when it comes to the recent Popes unwillingness to speak in plain language as Pope St. Pius X did and recommended.

 

[bear06]

bear06;3047942:

I think GerardP disagrees.

Correct me if I’m wrong, Gerard.

That is rather my point but methinks my fingers type to fast sometimes. I don’t think he’s said he disagrees with the BC but I fear that your assumptions are correct.

 

[jmcrae]

Why? Why could not a god choose to make himself known to lowly humans in distinct ways?

God, being Truth itself, would not lie about Himself merely to give comfort.

Hinduism has a way of describing the gods having different visages by which they have encountered humanity.

It also makes no claim to being a true religion. It freely admits to posing merely hypothetical ideas about God and the gods, and claims no special revelation.

When I say I do not believe that any religion is true what I mean is that no specific religion is universally true for everyone and perhaps by corollary, most religions are true for someone.

Religious truth has the same reality as every other kind of truth. In the name of tolerance, if I say that “For me, God is a pink bunny rabbit,” everyone nods their heads and says, “How nice.” But if I were to say that “for me, the Chrysler building is a pink bunny rabbit,” or “the sky is a pink bunny rabbit,” I would be taken in for an evaluation at the local psychiatric hospital - and rightly so.

Just because we can’t see God, doesn’t mean that we can make stuff up about Him that seems comforting, or that somehow He can be many different and contradictory things all at the same time.

 

[SemperFidelis]

According to the International Theological Commission, just this year if I remember correctly they put out a document that shed a different light on limbo.

Actually the document actually did jack squat. Here is a pertinant quote from the document:

“the theory of limbo definitely remains a possible theological opinion.”

Limbo was never a defined Dogma, however it was and still is an acceptable theology, held my many. Read this:

lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=334

Also, a study published by a commission (in this case the ITC) is not equivalent to Church teaching.

 

[TMC]

I think it’s indicative of the crisis in the Church in that the modern formulations in the Catechism as well as in the Conciliar and post-conciliar documents lead well-intentioned Catholics logically to conclusions that have been thought of centuries ago and condemned magisterially by the Church.

All it takes is a little wiggle room and a modernist can teach someone that the Church teaches “this” when in reality the Church had already condemned it.

I often wonder if it’s diabolical disorientation or willful malevolence when it comes to the recent Popes unwillingness to speak in plain language as Pope St. Pius X did and recommended.

And so we come, as these conversations all eventually must, to the real point. All Popes since Pius X are either malevolent liars or possessed by the devil. Which is it, I wonder? Was John Paul an agent of Satan, or merely a puppet under Satan’s control. So hard to tell.

This is brings us to the great irony of the Catholic-only Catholics. In denying the Vicar of Christ are they seperating themselves from the Church enough that their own “Catholics only” salvation theory excludes themselve?

 

[GerardP]

Why? Why could not a god choose to make himself known to lowly humans in distinct ways?

He does and has. But ultimately humans are more alike than dissimilar.

Hinduism has a way of describing the gods having different visages by which they have encountered humanity.

But Hinduism doesn’t attempt to explain everything as having an original cause. Polytheism just pushes the argument back another step.

Perhaps some personalities are geared to encounter the Divine in ways that are unique to them? Perhaps a legalistic mind would find comfort in the practice of one faith while an imaginative one would find comfort in yet a different faith.

Yet those are all qualities that are in the nature of humanity. Qualities that are reflections of an infinite God who would have all of those qualities to the highest levels of perfection. The religion of that God would contain a variety of spiritualities that conformed to those people. This is why Catholicism has the scholarly mind of Aquinas and the passion of Francis of Assisi, suffering saints, joyful saints, victim souls, martyrs, converts, miracle workers, hermits, evangelists, contemplatives, missionaries.

When I say I do not believe that any religion is true what I mean is that no specific religion is universally true for everyone and perhaps by corollary, most religions are true for someone. I find my comfort in Judaism. It is the faith that makes the most sense to me.

I find this fascinating because Catholics believe that Judaism is the only other religion which was true.

The more I read and study the further I’m convinced that everything in Judaism points towards Christ. From Adam and Eve to Moses, Abraham to Samson and Gedeon, to David and on and on.

I was recently watching Richard Harris’ portrayal of Abraham and watching Isaac carry the wood for the sacrifice up the mountain foreshadows Christ carrying the Cross. And Abraham saying, “God will provide the lamb.”

I’m not, however, going to try to convert all my friends to it (there’s not room in the mikvah anyway) because most of them already have a faith wherein they have found truth.

I guess that leads to the discussion of what “truth” is. Objective or subjective?

Now, if I had a friend that believed in Judaism, wanted to live as a Jew, was interested in Reform Judaism and lived in my area, I would likely try to convince him to become a member in my temple. Only because the more members we have the better our day school will be.

I have an in-law who is jewish (non-practicing) was baptized in a Protestant church and married into a Catholic family. If he were to choose a religion, his criteria for choosing a religion he said was, “on who has the best food.”