Salvation & Hope

[gorman64]

CatholicDude:

You said:“a man who hasn’t the Faith, whether he is guilty for that or not, cannot be saved”

I said, “Following St. Thomas, we are saying is that a man who hasn’t the Faith, whether he is guilty for that or not, cannot be saved. This is de fide.”

CatholicDude:

I said: " If anyone has at least the desire means they have cooperated with grace and cannot be guilty." This includes avoidance/repentance of sin.

Again, it is de fide that they must have supernatural faith to be saved.

CatholicDude:

What I dont understand is how from what you said a person can NOT be guilty for having no faith and YET NOT be saved.

One must have supernatural faith to be saved. That is de fide. One can die invincibly ignorant without supernatural faith.

In other words, it is absolutely necessary to share the Church’s faith and to be united with her at least by desire.

Gorman

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I said, “Following St. Thomas, we are saying is that a man who hasn’t the Faith, whether he is guilty for that or not, cannot be saved. This is de fide.”

Again, it is de fide that they must have supernatural faith to be saved.

One must have supernatural faith to be saved. That is de fide. One can die invincibly ignorant without supernatural faith.

In other words, it is absolutely necessary to share the Church’s faith and to be united with her at least by desire.

Gorman

I think we are talking past each other but are agreeing. We both believe salvation is possible for invincibly ignorant through supernatural faith.

 

[gorman64]

I think we are talking past each other but are agreeing. We both believe salvation is possible for invincibly ignorant through supernatural faith.

They do not remain invincibly ignorant however, they do not die in the state of lacking supernatural Faith.

Does that help?

Gorman

 

[Catholic_Dude]

They do not remain invincibly ignorant however, they do not die in the state of lacking supernatural Faith.

Does that help?

Gorman

Yes, I agree.

 

[cor]

Dear Cor:

You are misunderstanding Pius IX here. The point really is that without supernatural Faith one cannot be saved, not that ignorance of any sort can or can’t save, which is a nonsense.

I know that ignorance doesn’t save. But the point is that invincible ignorance doesn’t condemn. They are saved not by invincible ignorance but by adherence to as Pius IX says the “natural law” which they are able to follow thanks to God’s grace. I am not educated enough about the distinction between “natural” faith and “supernatural” faith to be able to say whether “supernatural” faith is necessary for salvation. But do you agree that all those who have the virtue of charity (love for God for his own sake) will be saved?

Thank you for your post.

 

[Joysong]

MTD:

Do you deny that “Baptism of Blood” and “Baptism of Desire,” which are not sacraments, have the same effect as the sacrament of Baptism in regards to removing Original Sin?

I posted this here, which indicates my belief in both.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

If not, then I don’t see how you can say sanctifying grace is only received through the sacraments.

Q. What is a sacrament?
A. A sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.

I can’t agree with certainty that “sanctifying grace” is also the effect of baptism of desire or blood, other than to affirm that in its “effects,” it is salvific. The CCC teaches:

2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

Are you saying therefore, that having baptism of desire, a person is living with habitual sanctifying grace, which is only bestowed sacramentally through baptism of water?

 

[MTD]

I know that ignorance doesn’t save. But the point is that invincible ignorance doesn’t condemn. They are saved not by invincible ignorance but by adherence to as Pius IX says the “natural law” which they are able to follow thanks to God’s grace.

Actually, they aren’t saved by that, and that’s what I didn’t like about the CCC’s explanation–it gives that impression. They are saved by the supernatural faith that is given to them because they faithfully obeyed the natural law despite invincible ignorance of the true religion. Once they have supernatural faith, they cannot really be truly ignorant any more because they now believe; they may be ignorant of the Church itself, but they are not ignorant concerning the fundamental dogmas of the faith, which are God’s existence, an eternal reward, the Trinity, and the Incarnation. Again, it is not moral uprightness (adherence to the natural law) that saves them; it is the supernatural faith granted to them because they were truly innocent and invincibly ignorant that saves them.

I am not educated enough about the distinction between “natural” faith and “supernatural” faith to be able to say whether “supernatural” faith is necessary for salvation.

Well, you don’t even need to know the difference in order to decide for yourself whether it is necessary for salvation. The Church has already proposed it as divinely revealed that no one can be saved without supernatural faith, and so one cannot deny that doctrine without heresy.

But do you agree that all those who have the virtue of charity (love for God for his own sake) will be saved?

The virtue of charity is impossible without supernatural faith. So if one truly has charity, he has supernatural faith. Nevertheless, his faith must be explicit as to certain dogmas if he is to be saved. All theologians are agreed on God’s existence and an eternal reward; most add the Trinity and the Incarnation; some add the immortality of the soul and the necessity of grace. To sum up, he cannot be saved unless he explicitly believes in God’s existence, an eternal reward, the Trinity, and the Incarnation.

Maria

 

[Joysong]

Gorman64:

I am not a follower of the St. Benedict Center. They are not traditionalists and are accepted by the Conciliar Church. I believe their errors are tolerated by the Conciliar establishment as long as they don’t try to proselytize.

What is the St. Benedict Center, and how does this concern our discussion? I was speaking about the post by member St_Benedict, who gave us an excellent link that explained a lot of background on EENS.

You can try to tar me (and others) with this label…but it won’t stick. Your position is the one of unorthodoxy…not mine.

We’ll see who is the unorthodox one, won’t we.

ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/PXIITREA.TXT

But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents (in actis suis) purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

A year before the appearance of the , the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office sent to the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston a letter containing explanations on the subject of the dogma that no one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church. This highly important document was approved by Pope Pius XII. Despite the fact that it was sent prior to the issuance of the , it was not published until two years after the publication of the encyclical. This Holy Office letter is the , one of the most important doctrinal statements which appeared during the reign of the late and beloved Sovereign Pontiff. [And it is this document, Gorman, that is specifically referenced again in V-II’s Lumen Gentium]

This document set forth clearly and in detail, and as the authentic teaching of the Holy See, the explanation of the dogma on the necessity of the Catholic Church for the attainment of eternal salvation which had long been presented as common teaching in the theological teaching on the Church itself. The elements of the exposition contained in the had, of course, long since been presented to the faithful in previous authoritative statements of the Church’s magisterium. **The entire doctrine, however, had never before been synthesized and set forth as clearly and in such scientifically complete detail in any previous document. **

Again it brought out the Catholic teaching that, in cases where men are invincibly ignorant of the true Church, “God accepts also an implicit desire (), so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.”

 

[MTD]

I posted this here, which indicates my belief in both.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Yes, I knew you believed in both. My point in asking those questions was to illustrate that it is impossible to believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood and at the same time deny that sanctifying grace can be received outside the sacraments because Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are both not sacraments and yet they confer sanctifying grace.

Q. What is a sacrament?
A. A sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.

Yes. You see, Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood, and an act of perfect contrition all lack the outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. But they still have the same effect of conferring sanctifying grace like their sacramental counterparts, Baptism and Penance.

I can’t agree with certainty that “sanctifying grace” is also the effect of baptism of desire or blood, other than to affirm that in its “effects,” it is salvific.

That salvific effect is sanctifying grace. It is de fide doctrine (that is, it is proposed by the Church as divinely revealed) that no one departing this earthly life without sanctifying grace can be saved. Sanctifying grace is a share in God’s life; it is the seed of eternal life.

Are you saying therefore, that having baptism of desire, a person is living with habitual sanctifying grace, which is only bestowed sacramentally through baptism of water?

Yes.

As an aside, you do agree that an act of perfect contrition restores one to sanctifying grace after having lost it by mortal sin, don’t you?

Maria

 

[Joysong]

MTD:

Once they have supernatural faith, they cannot really be truly ignorant any more because they now believe; they may be ignorant of the Church itself, but they are not ignorant concerning the fundamental dogmas of the faith, which are God’s existence, an eternal reward, the Trinity, and the Incarnation.

There it is again, Maria, the error that the truly ignorant can only be saved if their supernatural faith believes in the Trinity and the Incarnation, which is the birth of Christ. As L.G. teaches, the Mohamedans have faith, but they don’t believe in the Trinity or Christ. It does not exclude them from salvation if perfect charity is resident within them.

From the document in my previous post:

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Hebrews, 11: 6).

The first part of your statement, “God’s existence and an eternal reward” are true, and these can exist in a Mohamedan or other truly ignorant person But then you add the qualifier of belief in the Incarnation and Trinity for supernatural faith — which is not Church teaching, and as of yet, you have not produced any current Church teaching that supports this.

Yes, I knew you believed in both. My point in asking those questions was to illustrate that it is impossible to believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood and at the same time deny that sanctifying grace can be received outside the sacraments because Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are both not sacraments and yet they confer sanctifying grace.

You indicated that you believe a truly ignorant person who may be living in baptism of desire is also walking in habitual sanctifying grace because of it? I’m going to need a solid source for this. Can you show me where the Church teaches this?

 

[gorman64]

What is the St. Benedict Center, and how does this concern our discussion? I was speaking about the post by member St_Benedict, who gave us an excellent link that explained a lot of background on EENS.

I know that…it’s only a coincidence that the poster you referenced was St. Benedict. You suggested that I was a follower of this group. They are based at the St. Benedict Center. You obviously do not know much about this topic if you’ve never heard of it.

We’ll see who is the unorthodox one, won’t we.

We already have.

 

[MTD]

There it is again, Maria, the error that the truly ignorant can only be saved if their supernatural faith believes in the Trinity and the Incarnation, which is the birth of Christ. As L.G. teaches, the Mohamedans have faith, but they don’t believe in the Trinity or Christ. It does not exclude them from salvation if perfect charity is resident within them.

As I think I’ve mentioned more than once on this thread, all theologians are agreed that faith must be explicit as to God’s existence and an eternal reward, but most theologians also add the Trinity and the Incarnation. And the CCC follows these latter theologians. See no. 161.

The first part of your statement, “God’s existence and an eternal reward” are true, and these can exist in a Mohamedan or other truly ignorant person But then you add the qualifier of belief in the Incarnation and Trinity for supernatural faith — which is not Church teaching, and as of yet, you have not produced any current Church teaching that supports this.

I haven’t? Haven’t I quoted no. 161 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent Him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. “Since ‘without faith it is impossible to please (God)’ and to attain to the fellowship of His sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’”

Maria

 

[Walking_Home]

What is the St. Benedict Center, and how does this concern our discussion? I was speaking about the post by member St_Benedict, who gave us an excellent link that explained a lot of background on EENS.

We’ll see who is the unorthodox one, won’t we.

quote=Joysong
Well whaddya know! My last ditch search came up with gold in EWTN’s Library.

---

Oh please now–Joysong. You provided the link to the article where the St. Benedict Center is discussed—and now you are playing games–that you don’t know what it is. You used part of that article to try and tarnish posters in this thread. Your method of manipulation is astounding.

 

[Joysong]

You suggested that I was a follower of this group. They are based at the St. Benedict Center.

Where did I suggest that?

The following statement was issued in a seemingly orthodox Catholic website, given its name. We see that the Church’s document is called “fallible” and “heretical” and supporter John Daly is publicly castigated. So if you hold the same position, yet call me, also unorthodox, it would not surprise me. It has been the case as far back as the apostles. Along with St. Paul, I happily say that God alone is my judge. [and yours, too, Gorman]

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/John_Daly.html

John Daly is a supporter of the heretical letter Suprema haec sacra (Protocol 122/49).
Suprema haec sacra is the fallible, heretical letter of Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggianni (1949) against Fr. Feeney, which teaches that those in invincible ignorance of the Catholic Faith can be saved, and that those who are not members of the Catholic Church can be saved.

 

[MTD]

You indicated that you believe a truly ignorant person who may be living in baptism of desire is also walking in habitual sanctifying grace because of it?

No, supernatural faith removes invincible ignorance as to God’s existence, an eternal reward, the Trinity, and the Incarnation, which are the truths that must be believed explicitly in order for one to be saved.

I’m going to need a solid source for this. Can you show me where the Church teaches this?

I’ve already given you many sources. If you don’t even accept no. 161 of the CCC, what can I do?

Maria

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
You suggested that I was a follower of this group. They are based at the St. Benedict Center.

Where did I suggest that?

The following statement was issued in a seemingly orthodox Catholic website, given its name. We see that the Church’s document is called “fallible” and “heretical” and supporter John Daly is publicly castigated. So if you hold the same position, yet call me, also unorthodox, it would not surprise me. It has been the case as far back as the apostles. Along with St. Paul, I happily say that God alone is my judge. [and yours, too, Gorman]

---

Joysong—you don’t ceased to amaze me. How do you have the nerve to play innocent–after your statement below. Have you no shame.

Quote=Joysong
There you have it folks. Are we debating with Feeneyists or innocent Catholics who have been led astray by this false doctrine?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is now closed. Thank you, everyone who participated.

 

[Joysong]

Maria,

Obviously, you are going to distort and privately interpret Church teaching in light of #161, regardless of what the Church has put forth in L.G. You remind me of the sola scriptura folks who take that one line of scripture out of context with the entire bible and fight to the death in defense of its truth. No amount of reasoning or logic gets through.

Can you see how someone can resist entering the Catholic Church who has been indoctrinated with this teaching from birth? It is one of those “hard sayings” that people are not able or ready to hear. Jesus let the Jews walk away when they could not accept His teaching on the Eucharist.

So, Maria, I am really weary of this endless fruitless discussion that is going nowhere.