I
- Status
V
Vouthon
Guest
My dear sister Anna Scott
I cannot speak for Pope Eugene IV, but certainly Pope Innocent III (1160 - 1216) explicitly taught baptism of desire. Only a couple of years before attesting to the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Church” at Lateran Council IV, Pope Innocent wrote about a person who had “who had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of heavenly fatherhood” (Apostolic sedem, letter to the bishop of Cremona, Dz 388). The Pope, on a different instance, also taught baptism of desire with regards to a Jewish man who, when at the point of death and surrounded only by Jews, immersed himself in water and baptized himself. Even though this baptism was invalid, Pope Innocent said, “If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, though not because of the sacrament of the Faith” (Debitum pastoralis offici, letter to the bishop of Metz, August 28, 1206, Dz 413). In other words, the Jew received the effect of the sacrament by the absolute necessity of spiritual rebirth and desire for the sacrament, even though he did not receive the necessity of means. Moreover, by referring to Sts Augustine and Ambrose and the “learned Fathers,” Pope Innocent also affirmed baptism of desire as a constant teaching of the Church.
These examples demostrate that he did not believe that bodily membership in the Church was necessary, and this goes in line with what St Augustine said many, many centuries before:
“For, in that unspeakable foreknowledge of God, many who seem to be outside are in reality inside, and many who seem to be inside yet really are outside [the Church].” (St Augustine, On Baptism, 5:27)
To this end Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in the 1400s (a man so prominent that he nearly became Pope) wrote:
“…It is you, O God, who is being sought in various religions in various ways, and named with various names. For you remain as you are, to all incomprehensible and inexpressible. When you will graciously grant it, then sword, jealous hatred and evil will cease and all will come to know that there is but one religion in the variety of religious rites…”
Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401 –1464)
This is to imply that all people of goodwill, of whatever religion, are implicitly members of the “one religion”, the Catholic Church - without knowing it - because they implicitly seek after God as he is known to them through the dictates of conscience. And thats nearly 600 years before Vatican II and from probably the most respected Catholic theologian and thinker of that era.
And what about a prominent Doctor of the Church such as St Thomas Aquinas from the Middle Ages? He clearly taught invincible ignorance/baptism of desire:
“…It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed…”
- St Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)
Such ‘baptism of desire’ can be either explicit (in the case of the catechumen or Jew I mentioned earlier) or unconcious and implicit.
Love in Christ
I
Indiana_Jones
Guest
Yes, The Episcopal Church’s leader is KJS, but I have this weird feeling that Anna’s theological perspective is perhaps different than hers…
I thought this thread was about a Catholic issue that seems complex, not TEC?
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
iloveangels,
Everyone else on this thread has gone to great lengths to explain the CC’s teaching on “no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” I appreciate them and am grateful they care enough to spend their time helping me to understand this issue.
What is your agenda? Do you want me to leave? Do you want others on this thread to shut me out? What is it you want exactly?
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
iloveangels already knows this.Yes, The Episcopal Church’s leader is KJS, but I have this weird feeling that Anna’s theological perspective is perhaps different than hers…
I
iloveangels
Guest
That would be a good thing. Katherine Jefferts-Schori and her TEC is a heretical mess.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Portrait,
This is your thread, and it’s one of the best discussions of EENS here on CAF.
However, before I continue; I need assurance that this stalking situation with iloveangels will stop.
Peace,
Anna
V
Vouthon
Guest
Is there any difference between St Thomas Aquinas saying in the 13th century:
“…It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation…In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed…”
and Vatican II in the mid-20th century:
“…Since Christ died for everyone and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God…”
as well as Blessed Pope John Paul II saying in the late 20th century:
“…The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all…For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace…This grace comes from Christ…”
Especially in light of the fact that Pope Gregory VII, centuries even before Aquinas, recognised that the Muslim King Anzir had this saving grace directly from the Holy Spirit working in him outside the visible confines of the Church:
“…He who enlightens all men coming into this world (John 1.9) has enlightened your mind for this purpose. Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost…is our peace who hath made [us] both one. This good action was inspired in your heart by God…This grace granted to you by God…we pray in our hearts and with our lips that God may lead you to the abode of happiness, to the bosom of the holy patriarch Abraham…”
-Pope St. Gregory VII, Letter XXI to Al-Nasir the Muslim Ruler of Bijaya (Algeria), 1076
It is clear to me that we are dealing here with the same doctrine, which has not changed but simply developed over the ages as doctrines do
“…It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation…In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed…”
and Vatican II in the mid-20th century:
“…Since Christ died for everyone and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God…”
as well as Blessed Pope John Paul II saying in the late 20th century:
“…The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all…For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace…This grace comes from Christ…”
Especially in light of the fact that Pope Gregory VII, centuries even before Aquinas, recognised that the Muslim King Anzir had this saving grace directly from the Holy Spirit working in him outside the visible confines of the Church:
“…He who enlightens all men coming into this world (John 1.9) has enlightened your mind for this purpose. Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost…is our peace who hath made [us] both one. This good action was inspired in your heart by God…This grace granted to you by God…we pray in our hearts and with our lips that God may lead you to the abode of happiness, to the bosom of the holy patriarch Abraham…”
-Pope St. Gregory VII, Letter XXI to Al-Nasir the Muslim Ruler of Bijaya (Algeria), 1076
It is clear to me that we are dealing here with the same doctrine, which has not changed but simply developed over the ages as doctrines do
I
Indiana_Jones
Guest
Would it be correct to say that a Protestant Christian, who truly did not know that he or she should formally join the Catholic Church, would be in a situation of invincible ignorance? To use myself as an example: I spent twenty years as a Presbyterian (and a few more as an Anglican), seeking to worship and follow Christ. All I ever heard was how the Protestants were “right,” and I never even considered that it was wrong to separate from Rome. To me, because of my youth and lack of proper teaching at that time, that seems like invincible ignorance. Thus, it seems that if I had died at that time, I would have been saved through the Church (due to my faith and my baptism), even though I wouldn’t have been properly united to them. I wasn’t really a schismatic in any intentional sense.
However, when I discovered what I know now, it would have been sinful for me to remain where I was - and invincible ignorance would be removed. Is that correct? I don’t know a ton about this topic
, but is that on the right track at all? 
However, when I discovered what I know now, it would have been sinful for me to remain where I was - and invincible ignorance would be removed. Is that correct? I don’t know a ton about this topic
, but is that on the right track at all?
V
Vouthon
Guest
My dear brother IndianaWould it be correct to say that a Protestant Christian, who truly did not know that he or she should formally join the Catholic Church, would be in a situation of invincible ignorance? To use myself as an example: I spent twenty years as a Presbyterian (and a few more as an Anglican), seeking to worship and follow Christ. All I ever heard was how the Protestants were “right,” and I never even considered that it was wrong to separate from Rome. To me, because of my youth and lack of proper teaching at that time, that seems like invincible ignorance. Thus, it seems that if I had died at that time, I would have been saved through the Church (due to my faith and my baptism), even though I wouldn’t have been properly united to them. I wasn’t really a schismatic in any intentional sense.
However, when I discovered what I know now, it would have been sinful for me to remain where I was - and invincible ignorance would be removed. Is that correct? I don’t know a ton about this topic
When you were a Protestant, united to the Catholic Church both by a valid baptism and by a faith grounded in Christ, following the dictates of your conscience as it was informed and expounded to you by your Presbyterian upbringing and Anglican experience, you were invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church and this unconcious, implicit desire and inner disposition of heart and good will, possessed already the “reality” and “heart” of a Catholic - needing only the name and formal acceptance - such that, had you died in this state, there is a good chance that God would have welcomed you into his kingdom for faithfully following your conscience (although fallible human beings can never truly judge the fate of any soul, I am speaking hypothetically).
When you discovered, that is when it became conciously known to you, when you came to believe that the Catholic Church was the true Church it became imperative for you to follow your conscience and seek to become a Catholic, removing yourself from your current state into embracing formal unity within the Body of Holy Mother Church. However if you died in that process, with that simple desire for union with the Church, that would be sufficient for salvation anyway - not to mention that you have a valid baptism, which already joins you mystically to the Church, since Christ is the Church and the Church is Christ (there is no distinction, as Joan of Arc said) and so if you are baptised into Christ then you are baptised into the Catholic Church.
That’s how I would describe it, although I too may be prone to error in expressing it (so don’t quote me
). I understand the doctrine in my head but its sometimes difficult to accurately describe it to others The Catholic Church teaches that conscience must be followed always - even an erroneous conscience. Indeed St Thomas Aquinas said that it was a mortal sin NOT TO FOLLOW an erroneous conscience. This means that we cannot judge the soul of even someone who commits apostasy (leaves the Catholic Church or forms schism) since they might sincerely believe they are doing the right thing, and so they must follow that erroneous conscience (which is also why Catholic faith must be free and cannot be compelled).
The Catholic Church teaches that if we fail to follow our conscience, it is at this point that we sin, even if the conscience is objectively wrong. Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that it is wrong to not follow your conscience, as you are denying what you know to be true. Even if your conscience is misinformed, it is essential to follow your conscience in order to be true to yourself and to your creator. And so, according to this mighty theologian, it is sinful not to follow the subjectively right but objectively wrong conscience. And so a person is obliged to follow one’s conscience if one believes the judgment of one’s conscience is true, even if that judgment is objectively speaking incorrect. Aquinas said that as long as you apply the moral principles that your conscience has shown you, then you are following the correct course of action.
Similarly, Blessed Cardinal Newman believed that the conscience does not create truth, but it does detect truth that already exists and that is the responsibility of a person to intuitively determine what truth God is guiding them towards.
A
anodos
Guest
I have appreciated Anna Scott’s contributions to this thread. He/she has made good points and seems genuinely curious and patient. This jabbing is uncalled for.
V
Vouthon
Guest
I agree! I don’t actually understand what’s going on
P
Portrait
Guest
Dearly beloved friends,
Cordial greetings.
It is my custom to take a breather from the Boards at weekends, but I shall, God willing, rejoin the discussion on Monday.
May I just thankyou all you for the excellent (name removed by moderator)ut, it is has been a jolly splendid and riviting discussion and I myself have learned a great deal, thus far, regarding this oft debated issue of EENS.
Sorry Anna that I and others have not been able to shed as much light as we had hoped on this topic, but I for one will continue trying to do so next week. Hope that you will still be with us, my dear sister, so that we can carry on with our discussion in a charitable fashion as we have done hitherto.
It only remains for me to wish all of you an enjoyable and restful weekend, whatever you plan to do. Goodbye for now and God bless.
Warmest good wishes & prayers,
Portrait:tiphat:
Pax
Cordial greetings.
It is my custom to take a breather from the Boards at weekends, but I shall, God willing, rejoin the discussion on Monday.
May I just thankyou all you for the excellent (name removed by moderator)ut, it is has been a jolly splendid and riviting discussion and I myself have learned a great deal, thus far, regarding this oft debated issue of EENS.
Sorry Anna that I and others have not been able to shed as much light as we had hoped on this topic, but I for one will continue trying to do so next week. Hope that you will still be with us, my dear sister, so that we can carry on with our discussion in a charitable fashion as we have done hitherto.
It only remains for me to wish all of you an enjoyable and restful weekend, whatever you plan to do. Goodbye for now and God bless.
Warmest good wishes & prayers,
Portrait:tiphat:
Pax
I
Indiana_Jones
Guest
Thanks so much for the reply!My dear brother Indiana
This is a very interesting topic to me, and it’s been an outstanding thread.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Portrait,
Once again, you get the most polite CAF forum member award.
And that’s tough to get, because there are many polite forum members. It must be your “cordial greetings,” and “jolly splendids,” etc. No apologies necessary as to shedding light on the topic for me. People have gone above and beyond. It’s just a complicated subject, or maybe I’m just a simple person.
Either way, it takes time.Anyway, have a “jolly splendid” weekend.
“Warmest good wishes & prayers” to you as well,
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Indiana,
Glad you posted this, because I went from Southern Baptist to Anglo Catholic (TEC) and am still contemplating Catholicism. Sometimes, it’s a long journey.
Vouthon,My dear brother Indiana
When you were a Protestant, united to the Catholic Church both by a valid baptism and by a faith grounded in Christ, following the dictates of your conscience as it was informed and expounded to you by your Presbyterian upbringing and Anglican experience, you were invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church and this unconcious, implicit desire and inner disposition of heart and good will, possessed already the “reality” and “heart” of a Catholic - needing only the name and formal acceptance - such that, had you died in this state, there is a good chance that God would have welcomed you into his kingdom for faithfully following your conscience (although fallible human beings can never truly judge the fate of any soul, I am speaking hypothetically). . . .
Very encouraging post. I needed this.
Peace,
Anna
V
Vouthon
Guest
Amen! I think that our brother Portrait has made a truly excellent thread and is such a wonderful, kind, respectful and polite soulPortrait,
Once again, you get the most polite CAF forum member award.
No apologies necessary as to shedding light on the topic for me. People have gone above and beyond. It’s just a complicated subject, or maybe I’m just a simple person.
Anyway, have a “jolly splendid” weekend.
“Warmest good wishes & prayers” to you as well,
Anna
I nominate him for the award as well!And Anna you are far from “simple”. We are mere mortals trying to grapple with divine truths from the Infininte Mind of God. No easy task
We are like children entering a vast library filled with books in foreign languages we do not fully understand.May God bless and keep you both
L
Langdell
Guest
I wonder about this myself. Should I start another thread?
S
SteveVH
Guest
I agree as well. Anna is asking a legitimate question concerning words that are difficult. I have been conversing with Anna for several years now and know her be authentic and intellectually very honest. So enough already.
V
Vouthon
Guest
I have been conversing with her for about two days and yet the sincerity of her heart and the earnestness of her independent search after truth, is as clear to me as the light of dawn
I cannot judge our other dear brother for his strange attitude towards her. I presume that he did what he did in good faith, with pure intentions and a loving heart, even though the motive is at the present unclear to me
- Status