'Salvation outside of the Church' Revisited

[Vouthon]

And thus the Augustinian dictum:

“…How many who do not belong to us are really inside, how many of our own people are actually outside [the Church]…”

- St Augustine (354–430 AD)

Has at all times been accepted by the Catholic Church

And thus Jeff Mirus writes on “Catholic Culture”:

“…People can be saved without explicitly embracing Jesus Christ and His Church. This is not merely my assertion, of course, but the clear teaching of the Magisterium. The decrees of the earlier councils and popes admit the possibility [of salvation outside the Visible Church] by referring to being “added” or “joined” to the Church, rather than insisting upon explicit formal membership, as a condition of salvation (e.g., Council of Florence in 1442, Cantata Domino, Denzinger #714); and this traditional teaching has been developed and carefully explained by, among others, Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi (103), by the Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium (16), and by Pope John Paul II in Redemptoris Missio (10)…”

- Jeff Mirus

Amen

 

[Vouthon]

John Paul II sets forth the Magisterium’s infallible teaching on salvation outside the Church:

"…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. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal mystery, went on to declare that “this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. 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…"

- Blessed Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (1990)

Jeff Mirus comments:

“…This is the fullest statement of the Church’s official teaching, and you can see how it takes into account previous teachings which chose to emphasize the point that there is no salvation outside the Church without addressing the different ways in which one can be connected to the Church. Those older teachings do not state or even imply that formal membership is the only way of being joined to the Church, and in fact some of them (as I have indicated) use language which implies that other modes of connection are indeed possible…”

He says exactly what I said above and realized myself from spending many days closely reading these so-called “restrictive” Magisterium texts! The word “joined” suddenely struck me one day and I was like “AHA!” -bingo!

 

[Portrait]

Dear Portrait—

While I haven’t read the particular thread you spoke of in your opening post, I’d like to thank you for starting this thread. You do write in a considerate manner, and that’s much appreciated.

Thank you also, for taking seriously the concerns of those who stumble over the idea that the CC has not changed the teaching about the meaning of EENS. I am such a one—not with a hardened obstinacy, but with a genuine inability to see how the pre-Vatican II teaching can be reconciled withe the post-Vatican II teaching.

I had never heard of EENS before coming across it here at CAF about a year ago. Prior to that, though, I was well aware of the current CCC teaching on this subject. During the last year, off and on, I’ve tried to research the subject, as well as ocassionally talk about it with a few Catholics I know from another forum, whom I respect.

And, well, I haven’t made any headway–it still looks clearly to me (and, obviously, to others, both Catholic and non-Catholic), that the teaching has fundamentally changed. Don’t misunderstand me; I think the current CCC handles the topic with clarity and love…it just doesn’t seem to line up with prior teaching to me, though.

Here is a link to Mortalium Animos from 1928, in the Vatican archives. Please read the whole document. Paragraph 11, which seems very clear, is my main stumbling block.

Edit: I can’t get the link to go specifically to Mortalium Animos. It just goes to the home page for the Vatican archives. Please use Google to find the encyclical, as you (or anyone willing to try to answer) have time.

Dear AbideWithMe,

Cordial greetings and a very good day and thankyou for the above and I sincerely trust that what you read in this current thread will aid you in your understanding of Church teaching in relation to non-Catholics. As a Catholic, I understand only too well the problems that men have with EENS and, as a matter of fact, I was debating this very issue just before Christmas with a learned and earnest Protestant brother here on CAF.

What I think is imperative is that the harsh declarations of some of the earlier Popes, such as Pope Eugene, are not viewed in isolation, but considered within the entire broad sweep of Catholic dogma. Now this broad sweep approach to the topic will include what the Church teaches with respect to invincible ignorance and ‘baptism of desire’. Many without the Church do plainly aspire after the benefits which baptism imparts to the soul, even though they might not fully realize it. To make such a statement is not to try to reconcile strongly held ecumenical interests with what is seen by some as previous uncompromising and harsh Church teaching. Rather, it is to seek to arrive at a balanced and correct view of what the Catholic Church does actually teach and not what we think it teaches. As in the case of Sacred Scripture it is all too possible (don’t we know it) to embrace strange and erroneous doctrines contrary to God’ written word, because a text has been lifted from its context and turned into a pretext for all manner of bizzare and unorthodox opinions. Why, the bible can be made to teach whatever a man wishes it to teach, even though that man insists that he is only giving the plain and obvious meaning of the sacred text! The Catholic would say that it is precisely the same with Church teaching, it must be interpreted correctly. Thus alleged contradictions between past and present Church teaching invariably result from taking papal bulls or decrees out of context and severing them from the historical circumstances from which they emerged. Those who adopt this method then proceed to highlight inconsistencies an speak of past Church teaching being incongruent with present - all because they have ignored the context and failed to take into account the broad sweep of Catholic dogma.

The Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council did not suddenly decide to relax its doctrinal vigilance as regards non-Catholic religions etc. It may have adopted a more concilliatory tone to that used by Pope Eugene, but it has certainly not altered its teaching so that now “anything goes”, how could it?

God bless, my dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[ESMDHokie77]

John Paul II sets forth the Magisterium’s infallible teaching on salvation outside the Church:

…]

He says exactly what I said above and realized myself from spending many days closely reading these so-called “restrictive” Magisterium texts! The word “joined” suddenely struck me one day and I was like “AHA!” -bingo!

Thank you for posting those quotes from BJPJII Vouthon, you just provided the other side of the coin that is being argued as opposed to the past teachings of the Church. And I see no conflict between the sides of the coin.

Pax Vobis,
Phil

 

[Portrait]

If it were plainly obvious that NNES has not changed, and that the confusion is merely over a matter of change in ecumenical efforts; there would not have been “breakaway” Catholics, such as Traditionalists, who believe Vatican II did change the teachings of the CC.

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, founded in 1949 by Father Leonard Feeney, certainly cannot reconcile past teachings of NNES, and statements by previous Popes and Church Fathers, with Vatican II. Here are quotes from their website:

This just doesn’t make sense to me.

Anna

Dear Anna Scott,

Hello again.

Long before Vatican II, and in keeping with the Church’s understanding for the salvation of non-Catholics, the Holy Office (1949) condemned the error of Father Leonard Feeney who rigidly held to the view that all who did not formally enter the Catholic Church, even through no deliberate fault of their own, could never obtain eternal salvation. Their statement is as follows:

“It is not always required that one be incorporated as a member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one adhere to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be explicit…but when a man labours under invincible ignorance, God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to the will of God”.

Therefore, dear sister, if one is to arrive at a correct understanding of what the Church teaches, EENS must needs be harmonised with the notion of invincible ignorance or, if you please, and ignorance that is impossible to overcome. God alone knows and searches the hearts of men and our belief in His infinite mercy and supreme kindness leads us to conclude that He will not permitt anyone to be in Hell who does not rightly deserve to be there.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Vouthon]

Yes, exactly brother/sister Portrait

(BTW IN CASE ANYBODY GOES STRAIGHT TO THIS PAGE, CHECK PAGE 3 FIRST WHERE ALL OUR REPLIES ARE )

And let me substantiate what you say:

“…There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the NATURAL LAW AND ITS PRECEPTS INSCRIBED BY GOD ON ALL HEARTS and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even IN ANY WAY BE UNFRIENDLY to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation…”

- Blessed Pope Pius IX (QUANTO CONFICIAMUR, August 10, 1863)

“…Against the violent effort of the powers of darkness which would snatch from the hearts of men the very idea of God, we hope very much that Christians shall come and join all those who, and they are the greater part of humanity, believe that God exists and who adore him…”

*- Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris 1937 *

“…The Church from the beginning down to our own time has always followed this wise practice: let not the Gospel on being introduced into any new land destroy or extinguish whatever its people possess that is NATURALLY GOOD, just or beautiful. Although owing to Adam’s fall, human nature is tainted with original sin, yet it has in itself something that is NATURALLY CHRISTIAN; and this, if illumined by divine delight and nourished by God’s grace, can eventually be changed into true and supernatural virtue. This is the reason why the Catholic Church has neither SCORNED NOR REJECTED THE PAGAN philosophies. Instead, after freeing them from error and all contamination she has perfected and completed them by Christian revelation…"

- Venerable Pope Pius XII EVANGELII PRAECONES, 1951

In his encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943), 103 Pope Pius XII said that:

“…We urge each and every one of [those outside Catholic unity] to be prompt to follow the interior movements of grace, and to seek earnestly to rescue themselves from a state in which they cannot be sure of their own salvation. For even though, by a certain unconscious desire and wish, they may be related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they remain deprived of so many and so powerful gifts and helps from heaven, which can be enjoyed only within the Catholic Church…”

Six years later, this encyclical formed the basis for the response of the Holy Office to the teaching of Father Feeney. And so, the following paragraph gives an official interpretation to the teaching of Pius XII:

“With these prudent words [of Pius XII], the Pope censures those who exclude from eternal salvation all men who adhere to the Church only with an implicit desire; and he also censures those who falsely maintain that men can be saved equally well in all religions”

• *(Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing, 1949). *

ALL BEFORE VATICAN II

 

[Vouthon]

A longer (better) version of what the Holy Office said in 1949:

Holy Office, Aug 9, 1949, condemning doctrine of L. Feeney (DS 3870):

“It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a
member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one adhere
to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be
explicit… but when a man labors under invincible ignorance, God
accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is
contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to
conform his will to the will of God.”

 

[AbideWithMe]

Dear AbideWithMe,

Cordial greetings and a very good day and thankyou for the above and I sincerely trust that what you read in this current thread will aid you in your understanding of Church teaching in relation to non-Catholics. As a Catholic, I understand only too well the problems that men have with EENS and, as a matter of fact, I was debating this very issue just before Christmas with a learned and earnest Protestant brother here on CAF.

What I think is imperative is that the harsh declarations of some of the earlier Popes, such as Pope Eugene, are not viewed in isolation, but considered within the entire broad sweep of Catholic dogma. Now this broad sweep approach to the topic will include what the Church teaches with respect to invincible ignorance and ‘baptism of desire’. Many without the Church do plainly aspire after the benefits which baptism imparts to the soul, even though they might not fully realize it. To make such a statement is not to try to reconcile strongly held ecumenical interests with what is seen by some as previous uncompromising and harsh Church teaching. Rather, it is to seek to arrive at a balanced and correct view of what the Catholic Church does actually teach and not what we think it teaches. As in the case of Sacred Scripture it is all too possible (don’t we know it) to embrace strange and erroneous doctrines contrary to God’ written word, because a text has been lifted from its context and turned into a pretext for all manner of bizzare and unorthodox opinions. Why, the bible can be made to teach whatever a man wishes it to teach, even though that man insists that he is only giving the plain and obvious meaning of the sacred text! The Catholic would say that it is precisely the same with Church teaching, it must be interpreted correctly. Thus alleged contradictions between past and present Church teaching invariably result from taking papal bulls or decrees out of context and severing them from the historical circumstances from which they emerged. Those who adopt this method then proceed to highlight inconsistencies an speak of past Church teaching being incongruent with present - all because they have ignored the context and failed to take into account the broad sweep of Catholic dogma.

The Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council did not suddenly decide to relax its doctrinal vigilance as regards non-Catholic religions etc. It may have adopted a more concilliatory tone to that used by Pope Eugene, but it has certainly not altered its teaching so that now “anything goes”, how could it?

God bless, my dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Dear Portrait, Gary, and Vouthon----

Thank you all very much for your detailed and thoughtful posts.

Vouthon, I was familiar with the “inclusivist” quotes from ECFs that you posted, and also with some of the inclusivist quotes from Papal documents; but some of those you posted were new to me, so thank you especially for them.

Gary, I thought you gave a nice overview of the circumstances behind the Papal encyclical Mortalium Animos. I’ve read Unitatis Reintegratio and Mortalium Animos several times over the last year, as well as many other documents on the Vatican website. I’ve always tried to understand the reason and circumstances behind each particular document, but it helps to hear from a Catholic who has had longer familiarity with the encyclicals than I have.

Well, gentlemen, your posts have been helpful. However, I still find several parts of Mortalium Animos, along with some other encyclicals, to be problematic for me. So I have another request to make. For the first part of my request: Can we together research and discuss more of the circumstances behind the writing of Mortalium Animos? Following that, can we discuss the encyclical itself, with me pointing out where it seems problematic to me?

I’m in no hurry—I’ve been in “reserve judgment mode” about the subject of EENS for over a year. And I don’t want to impose more work on anyone. But, since this thread has a kind and helpful tone to it, I’d like to avail myself of more assistance from you all…as time permits for us.

 

[A_Gift]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

A short while before Christmas I was engaged in a discussion on these boards with a very learned Protestant who was asserting that the Catholic Church had, since Vatican II, changed her position regarding the final salvation of those outside her borders.

In my response I said that such decrees as, for example, Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino, 1441), were addressed to those already within the bosom of the Church, lest they should be tempted to join heretical bodies or abandon the faith. My interlocutor, was having none of this and said that "…it was a figment to interpret Eugene’s words to mean that Jews and pagans were as you say: “defecting from the faith and not to those who were outside of the Catholic Faith”. He went onto say that various Popes had, over a period of many centuries, issued very similar decrees to Pope Eugene’s, asserting no salvation outside the Catholic Church, which was very different from current Catholic teaching on the topic. My efforts were in vain as I tried to explain that the development of Church dogma has led to the conclusion that the Church extends not only to her avowed baptized membership, but also to all men of good will who earnestly seek after the truth. Of course, it does not automatically follow that all men will benefit from the salvific plan, merely that they may do so.

What I am desirous to learn is, what is or are the Catholic apologetic arguments for those, both Catholic and Protestant, who contend that current Church teaching on the salvation of non-Catholics is not congruent with teaching prior to the Second Vatican Council? Moreover, what arguments do the apologists usually employ to refute the assertion that Church teaching has radically changed on this matter? Finally, has the alleged ‘ambivalence’ of the VII documents, led to much confusion, even among the faithful, concerning salvability of non-Catholics and even of non-Christians (what are to make, for example, of Karl Rhaner’s notion of ‘anonymous Christian’s’)?

God bless and thankyou for your time, ladies and gentlemen.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

I know of only one place to find the answer and that is in the word of God. Titus 3:4-7 is axiomatic. Here is what it states: "4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. " I assume you have a regular prayer life and read and study prayerfully the Bible routinely; the answer should be universal regardless of religious affiliation if one understands the blessed Trinity and the work of each member of the Trinity. Apologetics is really debating using human wisdom and generally gets nowhere except “agree to disagree”; whereas the truth is found on the pages of Scripture according to God. Psalm 119 will verify this over and over and over and over - it is a very long Psalm; i believe the longest. Hope this is useful to you and good luck with your studies - God bless you.

 

[A_Gift]

A longer (better) version of what the Holy Office said in 1949:

Holy Office, Aug 9, 1949, condemning doctrine of L. Feeney (DS 3870):

“It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a
member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one adhere
to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be
explicit… but when a man labors under invincible ignorance, God
accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is
contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to
conform his will to the will of God.”

Nice quote unfortunately most people calling themselves “Christian” regardless of affiliation do not know the will of God which is clearly written in the word of God - sad but true. Can someone email me the direction on how to add a picture to a response (a permanent one with each posting) - thanks in advance.

 

[Vouthon]

Well, gentlemen, your posts have been helpful. However, I still find several parts of Mortalium Animos, along with some other encyclicals, to be problematic for me. So I have another request to make. For the first part of my request: Can we together research and discuss more of the circumstances behind the writing of Mortalium Animos? Following that, can we discuss the encyclical itself, with me pointing out where it seems problematic to me?

I’m in no hurry—I’ve been in “reserve judgment mode” about the subject of EENS for over a year. And I don’t want to impose more work on anyone. But, since this thread has a kind and helpful tone to it, I’d like to avail myself of more assistance from you all…as time permits for us.

Dear Abide With Me,

Yes, I would be more than happy to help you with any problems you might be having with that encyclical of Pope Pius XI (and any others). Please express your concerns and I will see if I can be of any help.

God Bless

 

[Portrait]

I know of only one place to find the answer and that is in the word of God. Titus 3:4-7 is axiomatic. Here is what it states: "4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. " I assume you have a regular prayer life and read and study prayerfully the Bible routinely; the answer should be universal regardless of religious affiliation if one understands the blessed Trinity and the work of each member of the Trinity. Apologetics is really debating using human wisdom and generally gets nowhere except “agree to disagree”; whereas the truth is found on the pages of Scripture according to God. Psalm 119 will verify this over and over and over and over - it is a very long Psalm; i believe the longest. Hope this is useful to you and good luck with your studies - God bless you.

Dear A Gift,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your contribution above.

As a Catholic I venerate Sacred Scripture as God’s word written and agree that it is through the saving merits of Christ’s Passion that men are saved and reconciled to God. The bible, being the word of God, contains the truth of the Gospel accepted by us Christians, without any reservation. However the truths of our most holy religion must needs be elucidated and *defended *to those who are uncommitted, unconverted and, perhaps, not a little sceptical concerning the truths of Christianity. Now that is where, my dear friend, apologetics comes into play, especially since we may be dealing with men who do not accept the authority of the bible as axiomatic.

Christians should familiarise themselves with the entire network of argument by which their faith is defended. The age in which our lot is cast is, as I am sure you are aware, jolly hostile to Christ and His Church. We have a duty, therefore, to master the proofs set forth in apologetics, so that we may have a fuller vision of the reasonableness of our faith and the enormous strength of its defences, and of the weakness of the objections advanced against it. It is surely our duty to eliminate temptation from our path and to fortify ourselves against the spirit of infidelity that infects the very air that we must daily breathe. We must seek to aquire sufficient enlightenment to enable us to answer the questions that may be addressed us by the honest inquirer. There is actually biblical precedent for such apologetics, for the exhortation of St. Peter to the early Christians is just as applicable to us as it was to them: “be prepared to make a defence to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you” (I Pet. 3: 15). Besides bringing the reward of a job well done, the study of apologetics is in iteself a most valuable mental discipline, for it stimulates and develops our reasoning powers by setting them to work at problems of immense importance and of unfailing interest. The present thread, I think, exemplifies this, inasmuch as we Catholics are being called upon to defend our Church’s previous and present teaching, showing that there are no inconsistent contradictions.

You could say, dear friend, that apologetics is essentially about giving reasons for our faith and showing unbelievers that they are worthy of their acceptance. As long as men have heads to think they will always want reasons. It is my deep conviction that today’s generation of Christians need apologetics more, not less, than previous generations because their religion is constantly challenged by the godless secular culture, covertly as well as overtly, and thus they must needs be able to unmask and refute the hidden premises of the covert attacks as well as to defend their faith against the overt attacks.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[AbideWithMe]

Good morning Vouthon—

Thanks.

I’ll still be re-reading some of yesterday’s responses after my work day ends, but I’ll post some questions about Mortalium Animos after that.

And Anna–

I don’t want to be hijacking this thread and taking it in a direction that’s just working on Mortalium Animos, so I hope it doesn’t seem as though that is my intention in jumping in here.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Nice quote unfortunately most people calling themselves “Christian” regardless of affiliation do not know the will of God which is clearly written in the word of God - sad but true. Can someone email me the direction on how to add a picture to a response (a permanent one with each posting) - thanks in advance.

As to St Paul…

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore Brothers, stand firm, hold fast to the TRADITIONS you have received from us either either by WORD or LETTER!

That Tradition is the Church which went from; Jesus to the Apostles to the Church and THEN to the Bible.

Meaning the truths of the Gospel, which may be called Traditions, because they are delivered from one to another; the Gospel was first delivered by…God the Father to Jesus Christ “The Word became Flesh”, as Mediator, and by Him to His Apostles “Upon the Rock I will build My Church”, and by them… to the CHURCH of Christ; better know on Earth today as the Catholic Church just as it was written by 104-AD!! Then it becomes called a form of doctrine delivered, the Faith once delivered to and by the Saints.

THEN CAME WHAT WE CALL TODAY THE BIBLE!!!

And those Saints…are still delivering the faith today.

And as the Apostle John states, there is more unwritten than written.

Thus what verifys the Bible? Surely not itself for it did not write itself. Here resides the unanimous testimony of the ECFs, thus a small elaboration of Tradition written. which coincides with the Oral which is not fully written in Bible nor could it be, and also is more clearly elaborated on in various apsects of the Catholic Church Doctrine.

Thus Sacred Tradition is the Church.

If I take the Bible away from you and give you a pen and paper, then ask you to write down what you actually believe about Jesus Christ/Bible. What in “fact” you will see unfold before your eyes… is Tradition, Creeds, and Doctrine thus affirming what you do-not believe, but yet only in “YOUR OWN” interpretation!. There is no such thing as just Bible. Bible and you become not Gods will, but your will as you interpret Gods will, you then assume what Gods will is, with no check and balance or foundation in Historical evidence. Or at least to the limited degree of ones own mind. Be it yours or mine.

“Photobucket” would be the quick answer to your second question.

Peace

 

[TexanKnight]

As to St Paul…

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore Brothers, stand firm, hold fast to the TRADITIONS you have received from us either either by WORD or LETTER!

That Tradition is the Church which went from; Jesus to the Apostles to the Church and THEN to the Bible.

Meaning the truths of the Gospel, which may be called Traditions, because they are delivered from one to another; the Gospel was first delivered by…God the Father to Jesus Christ “The Word became Flesh”, as Mediator, and by Him to His Apostles “Upon the Rock I will build My Church”, and by them… to the CHURCH of Christ; better know on Earth today as the Catholic Church just as it was written by 104-AD!! Then it becomes called a form of doctrine delivered, the Faith once delivered to and by the Saints.

THEN CAME WHAT WE CALL TODAY THE BIBLE!!!

And those Saints…are still delivering the faith today.

And as the Apostle John states, there is more unwritten than written.

Thus what verifys the Bible? Surely not itself for it did not write itself. Here resides the unanimous testimony of the ECFs, thus a small elaboration of Tradition written. which coincides with the Oral which is not fully written in Bible nor could it be, and also is more clearly elaborated on in various apsects of the Catholic Church Doctrine.

Thus Sacred Tradition is the Church.

If I take the Bible away from you and give you a pen and paper, then ask you to write down what you actually believe about Jesus Christ/Bible. What in “fact” you will see unfold before your eyes… is Tradition, Creeds, and Doctrine thus affirming what you do-not believe, but yet only in “YOUR OWN” interpretation!. There is no such thing as just Bible. Bible and you become not Gods will, but your will as you interpret Gods will, you then assume what Gods will is, with no check and balance or foundation in Historical evidence. Or at least to the limited degree of ones own mind. Be it yours or mine.

“Photobucket” would be the quick answer to your second question.

Peace

 

[Vouthon]

About Mortalium Animos, it is in many respects a very “harshly” worded encyclical but this is to expected since Pope Pius XI was quite a fiery character - he certainly didn’t “suffer fools gladly”, so to speak. One of his encyclicals - a favourite of mine - was addressed to the Catholics of Germany. It was a condemnation, in 1937, of Nazi ideology - the first of any world leader, religious or otherwise - and was called, “Mit Brennender Sorge” (With Burning Grief). This kind of epitomizes for me his personality.

It appeared to most Catholics during the 1920s and 30s that ecumenism was significantly diminshed somewhat under the pontificate of Pius XI, which is not wholly the truth. The Pope was very happy to encourage ecumenism in that he wanted to bring all people everywhere into the Catholic Church. He was simply not prepared to enter into any negotiations with others on the grounds that divine truths can be the subject of debate.

The central concern of Mortalium Animos is that a movement directed towards peace or reconciliation can never think that it is acceptable to dispense with questions of truth; with the reality and finality of divine truth. In many respects its an early 20th century, politically incorrect rebuke of the very same spirit of “moral relativism” which Pope Benedict XVI is decrying in this day and age. Real unity, according to Pope Pius XI in this encyclical, cannot and will not in the end be achieved by mere tolerance or a kindly disposed good will to the doctrinal beliefs of other religious bodies, while in the process diluting or regarding as uneccessary the objective truths of divine and Catholic faith. At stake is the question of the very nature of God Himself and what the Christian faith means in essence.

These concerns weren’t given up by Vatican II; rather a new, more positive, developed, enlightened and receptive way was found to address them across the old boundary lines of demarcation and separation between ecclesial communities.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
I didn’t see a response to this. If you answered, just give me a post number.

Thanks,
Anna

Hi Anna, Sorry it was VD and I promised my husband after my last repsonse to you, I would stay off the internet. So I was good.

Back to your questions though.

Okay Salvation only comes from the CC. Lets start there for one second. that teaching began in Eph. 4:5 It came from Christ himself.

Okay now with that said, you are looking at something that has been taught from the beginning, even from the time of Adam. We needed a Savior who could save us from Original sin. Until then heaven could not be opened.

Every Pope has taught this is different ways, different terms as they say. But it never changed one simple fact that there is no Salvation outside of Christ and it is through his Church.

Just because you could not understand one Popes teaching, Then go to another ones. What you could not see in that teaching he was saying, If anyone is saved he MUST in SOME WAY be a Member of the Church in what sense we cannot always know.

Now with that said, do you agree with him? Can you be saved without somehow being tied to Christ? If you think that you can then you are correct, we can never agree with this or any teaching of the CC.

What is being taught is no matter WHAT you do, you cannot earn your OWN Salvation. You must be tied to Christ in someway, Or his Church in someway, as I explained Christ is the head of the Church, Eph. 4:5.

Now just because you may not be visibly tied to him, lets say as a member going to Church every Sunday, participating in the Sacraments. etc. Does not mean you are not somehow tied to Christ in his Church in ways not visibly known.

Only God knows how we are truly tied to one another. But it is through his Son and his Church that Salvation came and continues to save us.

So now the question may be how in the world are the Jews tied to Christ and how do they have Salvation? or Do they have Salvation? I cannot answer that, the same as the Pope cannot.

But I can say as he does. there has to be a way they are tied, or they cannot obtain Salvation.

My guess would be on the Jews is this. The scriptures states Israel failed to obtain what is sought the elect obtained, but the rest were hardened. It is also said let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see and bend their backs forever.

But is it also said:

So I ask have the strumbled so as to fall? By no means, but through their trepass salvation has come to the gentiles so as to make Israel Jealous.

In Rev. it states on the last day they will fall to their knees and see what they have done.

In Matt 23:39 Jesus said himself he would not come until the Jews say, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

Maybe this scripture will help show you what the Pope was trying to get accross.

When you re-read what he wrote, keep that in mind, You will see Jesus is still giving the Jews time to come back to the Church.

But where does any scripture say that there is Salvation outside of Christ? It does not, and that is also what the Pope teaches. If you do not accept him, even on the last day, then you were not one of his. Rather Jew, don’t matter who you claim you are. If you reject him on the last day, you cannot be saved, simply because you cannot save yourself. No matter who you are, or what you do. Salvation comes from Christ.

That is why in some ways it is visible and some ways invisible. But it is the same. Christ is somehow in the mix to be saved. Some may never see it, until the last day.

 

[jam070406]

"The ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.”

Pope Benedict XVI

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
I didn’t see a response to this. If you answered, just give me a post number.

Thanks,
Anna

Also Anna where was it ever said that if are united to Christ in someway that we will not fall into false teachings or fall away from the Church, or have to all see eye to eye on every single teachng to have a tie to Christ.

Baptism as stated, is the most Visible thing that ties us all to oneanother and Christ. And also his Church may I add, If We are baptised in the name of the Trinity.

But could you show me where it is taught that we have to be completely together in everything to be tied to Christ.

While I agree there is only one TRUTH, and ONE HOLY SPRIIT teaching ONE TRUTH, I never saw it taught you cannot be tied to Christ if you do not have the fullness of truth in his Church.

 

[adf417]

Can someone email me the direction on how to add a picture to a response (a permanent one with each posting) - thanks in advance.

Keep looking, I’m sure it’s somewhere in the word or at least in the CAF rules.