Salvation outside the Church

[TMC]

I agree with the bolded part, but only in light of EENS. Is that your view as well TMC ?

The bolded material is my view, and I think it is consistent with the Church’s teaching. I am not sure what you mean by “in light of EENS”, but I agree with what the Church teaches on EENS, and I don’t find it inconsistent with the line you bolded.

 

[At_Trent]

The bolded material is my view, and I think it is consistent with the Church’s teaching. I am not sure what you mean by “in light of EENS”, but I agree with what the Church teaches on EENS, and I don’t find it inconsistent with the line you bolded.

So if a person lives in imitation of Christ, but knowingly rejects the Doctrine and Dogmas of the Church, do you believe they can be saved ?

 

[chypmonk]

You forgot to include the last part of the quote from the Holy Office:

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” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” (Denzinger, n. 801).

Good point and Super Natural Faith can not be had except when Sacramentally Baptized otherwise it would not be a gift of baptism and the dogmatic pronouncement of Unam Sanctum would not be true:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin"

You BoDers just ignore this pronouncement ‘outside the Church there is NO REMISSION OF SIN’

 

[RosaryCrusader]

How can any issue of faith and morals be outside of the Church’s doctrinal authority. If you are saying you disagree with the Church on this point, fine. But you can’t seriously be claiming that the Church has no authority to teach in this area?

Saying we can “suppose” that someone would want to be baptised is outside of faith and morals and is speculation.

 

[TMC]

So if a person lives in imitation of Christ, but knowingly rejects the Doctrine and Dogmas of the Church, do you believe they can be saved ?

My personal belief is that they can. This is one area where Church teaching is a bit unclear to me. I think the Church would say that such a person could be saved in two ways - 1) if that person really, truly and fully believed that what he or she was doing in rejecting the Church was morally justifed and correct, and 2) God could always choose to save such a person for mysterious reasons we are not privy to. I think the Church would say that both are unlikely in practice.

 

[TMC]

Saying we can “suppose” that someone would want to be baptised is outside of faith and morals and is speculation.

I don’t understand what speculation has to do with it. The Church is saying if X, then Y. That is inherently a speculative proposition whether you are talking about physics, math or theology. The fact that the doctrine includes an unpredictable variable does not preclude the Church from teaching what happens when the variable has a given value.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

ANSWER: Pope Pius IX

1. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. 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.
2. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."

Brother Paul,

See Fr. Michael Mueller, CSSR (cfnews.org/invig.htm) who addresses this topic (as well as many others) in his book, The Catholic Dogma. Fr. Mueller, who lived during the reign of Blessed Pope Pius IX, specifically addresses the quotes you mention.

The short of it is invincible ignorance (inculpable) neither damns nor saves. It excuses the person from sin against the 1st commandment but it does not justify, nor does it provide sanctifying grace or supernatural faith. All of which are necessary for eternal salvation.

 

[At_Trent]

My personal belief is that they can. This is one area where Church teaching is a bit unclear to me. I think the Church would say that such a person could be saved in two ways - 1) if that person really, truly and fully believed that what he or she was doing in rejecting the Church was morally justifed and correct, and 2) God could always choose to save such a person for mysterious reasons we are not privy to. I think the Church would say that both are unlikely in practice.

Then you reject EENS.

We can try and find loopholes if we like, but if one says that someone who rejects Doctrine and Dogma, thus removing themselves from communion with HMC, can still be saved, then that is rejection of EENS.

I’m not calling you a heretic, but to agree with those who reject EENS is flirting with heresy.

 

[chypmonk]

CATECHISM OF POPE SAINT PIUS X
The Church in Particular
8 Q. What is the Catholic Church?
A. The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptised who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.
9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?
A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.
21 Q. What is the constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ?
A. The Church of Jesus Christ has been constituted as a true and perfect Society; and in her we can distinguish a soul and a body.
22 Q. In what does the Soul of the Church consist?
A. The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and of the Saints.
23 Q. In what does the Body of the Church consist?
A. The Body of the Church consists in her external and visible aspect, that is, in the association of her members, in her worship, in her teaching-power and in her external rule and government.
24 Q. To be saved, is it enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church?
A. No, to be saved it is not enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church; it is necessary to be a living member.
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
28 Q. How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?
A. The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm

This is a deception foisted on BoDers by their apologists

1.** This not a universal Catechism written by St. Pius X-**- It is a nick name given to a local Italian Catechism that has stuck ( and for promotional selling purposes) and stemmed from a text that was prepared by Pius X when he was bishop of Mantua. So even if it were his original, which it wasn’t, it would still not be infallible-before he was pope-- as NO catechism is- It is a bit of slight of hand though to pass this off as a magisterial document. ( I am not saying you are doing this but it is a tendency among BoDers.)

2.Belonging to Soul and not Body condemned(in red above)
See the division of belonging to the Church’s body or soul.This division is repeated in section “Those Outside the Communion of Saints” #10,#22, that people can belong to the “soul” of the Church but without being part of the body and be Catholic, i.e. without Sacramental Baptism. (also see BoD/BoB) This theory was condemned by Leo XIII in the encyclical “Satis Cognitum”.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896:
“For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ… From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error… It is assuredly impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other,** as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone.** The connection and **union of both elements is as absolutely necessary **to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.”

again

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928:
“For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”

Again we have dubiousness surrounding their “proof”
A misnamed catechism implying written by a reining Pope.
Their very “proof” was condemned by Popes before and after Pius X.
BoDers have very weak arguments

 

[chypmonk]

I believe the requirements for baptism of desire have already been explained on this thread. Baptism of a desire is a desire for the reception of the baptism animated by perfect charity, and this desire may be either explicit as in the case of catechumens or implicit, which could even constitute an unconscious yearning for baptism made by one who is invincibly ignorant of its existence.
Here is a brief section from the letter from the Holy Office given with full approval of Pope Pius XII:
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance 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. …
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM
This teaching is so firmly rooted in the Church’s tradition that it goes beyond the mere ordinary magisterial weight of that decree from the Holy Office. This fact too was also pointed out earlier in this thread that this dogma of baptism of desire is one that is so unanimously accepted by theologians and doctors of the Church that it transcends to the level of the universal ordinary Magisterium and as such would be infallible.

First as far as I know there is NO proof that Pius XII even knew of this document.

1. On August 8, 1949 a Protocol letter came from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. It censored Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center for teaching the dogma of no salvation outside the Church in the literal sense (this is, of course, how all defined dogmas must be understood).
2. This letter was signed by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani and was identified as Protocol No. 122/49.
3. It was formally defective in that it was never published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Acts of the Apostolic See). It is this register alone which confers an official and binding character on a document. And even then, only so long as it meets the proper forms.
4. Consequently, this letter is without any binding effect as an act of the Holy See or any type of official Church document. Its status, then, can only be that of the opinion of one bishop, expressed in a letter to another bishop.

If this document had the power you suppose then the same Holy Office seems to have reversed itself and has approved the Feeney position by approving 3 communities that promote his teaching.

 

[chypmonk]

Brother Paul,

The short of it is invincible ignorance (inculpable) neither damns nor saves. It excuses the person from sin against the 1st commandment but it does not justify, nor does it provide sanctifying grace or supernatural faith. All of which are necessary for eternal salvation.

:clapping: well said

 

[SouthpawLink]

chypmonk,
I applaud you for your defense of Catholic dogma. As At Trent pointed out in post #71, Fr. Feeney was reconciled with the Church in 1972 and not asked to retract or recant his teaching. Nevertheless, I think it must be affirmed by all that catechumens who explicitly desire to enter into the Church and yet die before baptism can enter into heaven, as the Church has already infallibly cannonized several such saints in her Roman Martyrology. Examples include St. Emerentiana, St. Genesius of Arles, St. Victor of Braga, and St. Rogatian. The Divine Liturgy is a witness of Sacred Tradition and must be respected. The Church proposes the above non-baptized saints for our veneration.

Let me make myself clear. I believe that all must be Catholic before they die in order to be saved. Some men die as members of the Church in re, as actual members. Others die in voto, in desire. As the Letter of the Holy Office stated, it cannot be simply any kind of desire, but instead a firm desire accompanied by divine and Catholic Faith and perfect charity. The Catholic Faith is utterly necessarily for salvation, without which no one is saved. Any Protestants, Jews or Muslims who are saved are saved as Catholics, by accepting and believing in the Catholic Faith. They are not saved in their religions nor by their religions.

As for the universal and common consent of theologians, please see Wilhelm and Scannell’s A Manual of Catholic Dogma, which states:

“For the Catholic it is not necessary to demonstrate positively from coeval documents that the Church has always borne actual witness to a given doctrine. … When, however, the Ecclesiastical Tradition of the present is not publicly manifest, and the judges of the Faith have to decide some controverted question, they must investigate the Tradition of the past, or, as St. Vincent of Lerins expresses it, they must appeal to antiquity. It is not necessary to go back to an absolute antiquity: it is sufficient to find some time when the Tradition was undoubted” (Vol. I, chap. 4, Sec. 25, I).

“When, however, the majority of approved and weighty Theologians agree, it must be presumed that their teaching is not opposed to that of the Church. Moreover, if their doctrines are based upon sound arguments propounded without any prejudice and not contradicted very decidedly, the positive probability of the doctrines must be presumed. No more than this probability can be produced by the consent of many or even of all Theologians when they state a doctrine as a common opinion (opinio communis) and not as a common conviction (sententia conmunis). … The consent of Theologians produces certainty that a doctrine is Catholic truth only when on the one hand the doctrine is proposed as absolutely certain, and on the other and the consent is universal and constant (Consensus universalis et constans non solurn opinionis sed firmae et ratae sententiae). If all agree that a particular doctrine is a Catholic dogma and that to deny it is heresy, then that doctrine is certainly a dogma. If they agree that a doctrine cannot be denied without injuring Catholic truth, and that such denial is deserving of censure, this again is a sure proof that the doctrine is in some way a Catholic doctrine. If, again, they agree in declaring that a doctrine is sufficiently certain and demonstrated, their consent is not indeed a formal proof of the Catholic character of the doctrine, nevertheless the existence of the consent shows that the doctrine belongs to the mind of the Church (catholicus intellectus), and that consequently its denial would incur the censure of rashness” (Vol. 1, chap. 4, Sec. 27, II, par. 2).

space.net.au/~nethow/Sede/wilhelm_scannell_04.html

Is Fr. Jurgens an approved and weighty theologian?

Is it not significant that the same pope who twice taught the Catholic dogma of EENS (Denz. 423, 430) also held baptism of desire as being true? Is it not possible that baptism of desire does not contradict, but rather compliments EENS?

Continued…

 

[SouthpawLink]

Continued from post above:

chypmonk:

In matters of Faith and Morals we are bound only to that which is infallible and universal

On the contrary, the following is a condemned proposition: “The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of faith” (Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, n. 22: Denz. 1722). See also Denz. 1683-1684, already presented: “*t is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions” (Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter: Denz. 1684).

The Magisterium of the Church teaches infallibly by both defining and non-defining acts, the former belong to the extraordinary Magisterium, the latter belonging to the universal and ordinary Magisterium. Moreover, as you have already cited Ott’s listing of thelogical notes, you know well that we are bound to theological truths and conclusions.

una fides,
“DS” stands for Denzinger-Schonmetzer, a later and renumbered edition of Denzinger (The Sources of Catholic Dogma). Denzinger-Schonmetzer is not yet available in English, but the Latin (as well as French) edition is online.

catho.org/9.php?d=g1

chypmonk,
I hope your post on the baptism of desire position (#110) is a joke (you wrote: “without believing in Christ”). The Letter of the Holy Office (8 August 1949) says the exact opposite, namely that supernatural faith and perfect charity are necessary for salvation. You say that faith cannot come before Baptism, and yet as I will show below, the Church has taught that it does.

St. Augustine witnesses to baptism of blood: “When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the laver of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism” (De Civ. Dei, XIII, vii).

And again, the Catholic Encyclopedia teaches: “It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.” Moreover: “Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice “except by the washing of regeneration or its desire” (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.”

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

“Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a ‘pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned’ [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins” - Condemned (Pope St. Pius V, Ex omnibus afflictionibus, n. 31: Denz. 1031).

“That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins” (Ibid., n. 32: Denz. 1032).

“A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained” - Condemned (Ibid., n. 33: Denz. 1033).

“Through contrition even when joined with perfect charity and with the desire to receive the sacrament, a crime is not remitted without the actual reception of the sacrament, except in case of necessity, or of martyrdom” - Condemned (Ibid., n. 71: Denz. 1071; see also n. 43: Denz. 1043).

What can we learn from Pope St. Pius V? That catechumens can have perfect charity, which necessarily includes remission of sins, and that this charity can be acquired before sacramental baptism, even when not in a case of necessity.

Faith can be had before baptism, as shown in Denz. 1349a and 1349b and in chapter 6 of Session VI of the Council of Trent.*

 

[TMC]

Then you reject EENS.

We can try and find loopholes if we like, but if one says that someone who rejects Doctrine and Dogma, thus removing themselves from communion with HMC, can still be saved, then that is rejection of EENS.

I’m not calling you a heretic, but to agree with those who reject EENS is flirting with heresy.

I don’t think I am rejecting EENS, I think I am explaining it the way the Church teaches it.

 

[bluelake]

No, we shouldn’t judge. But Christ said Church. He didn’t say churches. The protestants left Her.

The first church was Apostolic.
catholic means universal.
As I said, as christians, we all worship and love the same Savior . God the Father sent his Son to die for all christians.

God bless,
bluelake

PS.
We are to be devoted to one another in brotherly love. See Rom12:9-21
This is taken from a booklet written by Patrick Madrid.

Have you read any of his writings?
www.patrickmadrid.com

 

[una_fides]

Brother Paul,

See Fr. Michael Mueller, CSSR (cfnews.org/invig.htm) who addresses this topic (as well as many others) in his book, The Catholic Dogma. Fr. Mueller, who lived during the reign of Blessed Pope Pius IX, specifically addresses the quotes you mention.

The short of it is invincible ignorance (inculpable) neither damns nor saves. It excuses the person from sin against the 1st commandment but it does not justify, nor does it provide sanctifying grace or supernatural faith. All of which are necessary for eternal salvation.

It is absolutely true that invincible ignorance itself does not justify anyone. It simply excuses for that specific sin. Nevertheless, one who is invincibly ignorant of the truths of the faith still has salvation available to him. If he were to make an act of perfect charity towards God, in whom he trusts with the amount of knowledge of God that he may have, then he can be saved. It is also true that in that act of perfect charity would also consist and act of perfect contrition for any sins that person may have committed against the almighty. Since sin is dependent upon one’s knowledge, he would be judged according to his conscious, which he has the obligation to form. If he neglects to form his conscious or seek out the truths of the faith to the degree of which we are obligated to do so, then he would not be invincibly ignorant but instead would be culpably ignorant. A person truly invincibly ignorant who makes a perfect act of charity (and contrition) to God would receive the grace of the sacrament of baptism; he would be baptized by desire. Such faith would be considered to be implicit since the person does not know of baptism or its necessity, but if he did he would have received it.

 

[una_fides]

This is a deception foisted on BoDers by their apologists

No deception going here. Just an honest inquiry into the truth. You stating such is no different than someone of the contrary opinion calling your writing a deception. The question of who is correct does not rest in who can best villainize the opposition.

1.** This not a universal Catechism written by St. Pius X-**- It is a nick name given to a local Italian Catechism that has stuck ( and for promotional selling purposes) and stemmed from a text that was prepared by Pius X when he was bishop of Mantua. So even if it were his original, which it wasn’t, it would still not be infallible-before he was pope-- as NO catechism is- It is a bit of slight of hand though to pass this off as a magisterial document. ( I am not saying you are doing this but it is a tendency among BoDers.)

Sources?? Can you please tell us where you received this information concerning this catechism? It seems that it certainly helps your position to discredit the sources which contradict you, but your statement has no real weight until you can cite sources that demonstrate your assertion to be correct. Did you read this from a Feenyist publication perhaps? Can you demonstrate that this material was not from Pius X or that he did not approve of its contents? Here is some information I dug up online on this catechism (sources cited!)uring the sitting of the first Catechetical Congress in 1880, the then Bishop of Mantua (later St. Pius X) proposed that the Holy Father be petitioned to arrange for the compilation of a simple, plain, brief, and popular Catechism for uniform use all over the world. Shortly after his elevation to the Chair of Peter, Pius X at once set about realising, within certain limits, his own proposal of 1880, by prescribing a uniform Catechism — the Compendium of Christian Doctrine — for use in the dioceses of the ecclesiastical province of Rome, at the same time indicating that it was his earnest desire to have the same manual adopted all over Italy.
ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm#Introduction
The Catechism of Pius X is listed just below this explanation given above. Here is another article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_Saint_Pius_X (I realize it’s wikipedia, but it still demonstrates the commonly held opinion that this catechism did stem from his authority.) Here is another site that says the catechism was from Pius X: communigate.co.uk/ne/tradition/page31.phtml
Notice even Amazon.com has the explanation of the book as coming from Pius X: “Unlike other Catechisms addressed to priests and bishops, this compendium – in question and answer format – was intended as a brief, authoritative summary for the Catholic layman and the general public by Pope Pius X, later canonized in 1954.” amazon.com/Catholic-Catechism-Saint-Pius-ebook/dp/B0037KMFL2
Here is another site with the same explanation (a global Catholic research library): icatholicism.com/catechisms/catechism-of-st.-pius-x.html
And yet another: “The Catechism of Saint Pius X is a short book, issued by Pope Pius X with questions and answers regarding the essentials of Christian faith.” sites.google.com/site/apostolicapologetics/library/catechism-of-saint-pius-x
I could go on all day… But let me guess, they’re all just a bunch of BoDers who know nothing right!
That said, I’m not saying I have certain knowledge of this catechism, but you do need to demonstrate that it is not from St. Pius X since you made such an assertion and since the common understanding is that it did come from the pope.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I’m quite familiar with that statement. You would agree that when one receives baptism he has thereby been placed into the “bosom and unity of the Catholic Church,”

Again, that is not in keeping with infallible Church teaching. I refer you to MIRARI VOS, the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832), specifically where it says …A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”… showing that baptism alone does not ensure that one has entered it the “bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”.

The problem comes when one sees everything as contradiction instead of trying to see how one truth can fit together with another.

Agreed. And the reason why I am an active member of this forum is to share what I know AND learn what I don’t.

If we conclude that the Church had infallibly excluded those with a desire for baptism, then we would also have to conclude that countless popes and the universal Church has erred continually in this regard in other authoritative pronouncements.

And if we conclude that the Church had infallibly included those with a desire for baptism, then we would also have to conclude that countless popes and the universal Church has erred previously in this regard in authoritative pronouncements.

The difference is that these other popes did not see contradiction. They saw harmony.

Please show me the harmony which I seem to be not seeing. Baptism of blood teaches that if one spills their blood for the faith, then that is their baptism into the faith. How is this not in direct contraction to the INFALLIBLE teaching of Pope Eugenius IV … "no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

 

[chypmonk]

No deception going here. Just an honest inquiry into the truth. You stating such is no different than someone of the contrary opinion calling your writing a deception. The question of who is correct does not rest in who can best villainize the opposition.

I apologize, It was a little rough, so sorry.

I also apologize for not providing links to the papal quotes, this has been duly acknowledged and repaired below:blushing:

Sources?? Can you please tell us where you received this information concerning this catechism? …During the sitting of the first Catechetical Congress in 1880, the then Bishop of Mantua (later St. Pius X) proposed that the Holy Father be petitioned to arrange for the compilation of a simple, plain, brief, and popular Catechism for uniform use all over the world. Shortly after his elevation to the Chair of Peter, Pius X at once set about realising, within certain limits, his own proposal of 1880, by prescribing a uniform Catechism

; Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10) Jan. 6, 1928 (link here)] of why the quote you gave was in error. Your post confirms in general my point (thank you because now I don’t have to look it up)ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm#Introduction

1. It was not a universal catechism
2. It was started by Pius X when he was still a cardinal
   3.I may have been mistaken that he wasn’t directly involved in it as Pope, (but I don’t think so) but it is beside the point and moot. I don’t have the time to research the history of it in that much detail because catechisms are never authoritative in themselves. This was already covered in post#57(link) ( which I can understand that you may have missed it because the thread has gotten long) the main point in that post was:

Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction pg.XXXVI:
“Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”

Cardinal Ratzinger says the same as me in his book",Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church":
“The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole.”

Jimmy Akins ( BoD advocate) says the say as me.

“Thus the Catechism presents the teaching of the Church without elevating the doctrinal status of those teachings beyond what they otherwise have. Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions (esp. in the area of social teaching), there remains due liberty for theologians (and others) when they encounter something that has been proposed only tentatively.” http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/02/ratzinger_on_th.html
(PS: the Ratzinger quote is in the Jimmy Akins link)

Meaning catechisms are not authoritative in themselves, even universal ones.

1. Last point is that you left out the last sentence of your quote from the introduction:
   "The text selected was, with slight modifications, that which had been adopted for some years by the united hierarchy of Piedmont, Liguria, Lombardy, Emilia, and Tuscany."ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm#Introduction

To a modernist the body and soul thingy could be considered slight, so it could explain how a pope before and after St. Pius X could have condemned something and “his” catechism got it wrong. Even if it were part of the original, it still doesn’t matter because catechisms are done by committee and are never considered infallible.

 

[JM3]

.
Please show me the harmony which I seem to be not seeing. Baptism of blood teaches that if one spills their blood for the faith, then that is their baptism into the faith. How is this not in direct contraction to the INFALLIBLE teaching of Pope Eugenius IV … "no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Post the entire Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV. There is a section of it that you are ignoring.