Salvation outside the Church

[At_Trent]

chypmonk, the article I posted, I’m not sure I agree with as I stated.

The article is written to refute Feenyism. If I look at the Doctrine of the Church, I have to think that it’s ok to be a Feenyite.

Pope Pius XI…
10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that “this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills.”[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] 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.[24]
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

No pope has said otherwise since St Cyrprian’s time, per the Doctrine Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus … but, all since VII have made concessions under the banner of ecumenism. I believe this to be false ecumenism.

Do we agree on this ?

I do stop short of calling these popes heretics, because of the cloudy issue of Communicatio in sacris.

 

[bluelake]

Hello all, I searched the forum trying to get more information on the subject but failed. I have read all I can and wonder with amazement why 1960 years worth of searching the word by the great men of God, why the church changed the outside the church no salvation apparent theory. I have read things like “if” a man would have agreed with the church “if” he knew it and “if” he would have accepted Christ then he has attained salavation outside the church. Are you kidding me? Did Vatican II change the church just to make it easier to accept. I’m a bit confused and I know there are many here who know much more than a new Catholic. God bless you all.

mike,
Are you asking,’ if a person must attend a certain Church in order to be saved?’
Churches do not save, Jesus Christ is our Savior.
God shows no favortism. Rom.2:11 He is worshiped and adored in all Christian Churches.
Jesus Christ is the same Savior for all Christians. The question which should you should be asking is,
‘Do you have a personal relationship with the Savior.’ Walking everyday with the Savior is a arduous journey. When we say we have no sin, that is the sin of pride.
Get my meaning?

God bless your journey,
bluelake

 

[At_Trent]

mike,
Are you asking,’ if a person must attend a certain Church in order to be saved?’
Churches do not save, Jesus Christ is our Savior.
God shows no favortism. Rom.2:11 He is worshiped and adored in all Christian Churches.
Jesus Christ is the same Savior for all Christians. The question which should you should be asking is,
‘Do you have a personal relationship with the Savior.’ Walking everyday with the Savior is a arduous journey. When we say we have no sin, that is the sin of pride.
Get my meaning?

God bless your journey,
bluelake

At the time that was written, all Christians were Catholic.

 

[bluelake]

chypmonk,
Okay, that’s fine. I’ll have to look over your quotes.

The Catholic Faith was revealed by God and the Catholic Church was founded by Christ - every Catholic must believe in those two propositions. Every Protestant denomination is false in the sense that they each depart from Divine Revelation both in faith and in practice (cf. Roberti-Palazzini, Dizionario di teologia morale, p. 813).

Besides, truth cannot contradict truth. If the Catholic Faith is true, then other faiths with contrary beliefs - contrary to those of the Catholic Faith - must necessarily be false. Moreover, all Protestant worship is false in so far as they do not adore God in the manner in which He desires to be worshiped (by way of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass).

So yes, I would agree with the previous poster that all Protestant religions are false. I think it can be further said that God does not positively desire the existence of Protestantism, but merely permits it, just as He permits other evils. Jesus prayed that His Church would be one (cf. John 17), and she is one; let us pray that non-Catholics are prompted by God’s grace to join His Church, the only ark of salvation.

southpawlink,
This is a good example of judging other Christians. And why we should not go there.

The Greatest Commandment given by Jesus Christ can be found in Mt. 22;36-38
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandmentin the law?
37. Jesus replied, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all you soul and with all your mind. 38. this is the first and greatest commandment. 39. And the second is like it:
“Love your neighbor as yourself.”

When we begin to judge others, we may want to be aware of this teaching also, which reads, "
“do not judge, or you to will be judged. 2.For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” Mt.7:1-2
“Love” , This may be found in chapter 13 of First Cor.

God bless,
bluelake

 

[At_Trent]

southpawlink,
This is a good example of judging other Christians. And why we should not go there.

The Greatest Commandment given by Jesus Christ can be found in Mt. 22;36-38
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandmentin the law?
37. Jesus replied, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all you soul and with all your mind. 38. this is the first and greatest commandment. 39. And the second is like it:
“Love your neighbor as yourself.”

When we begin to judge others, we may want to be aware of this teaching also, which reads, "
“do not judge, or you to will be judged. 2.For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” Mt.7:1-2
“Love” , This may be found in chapter 13 of First Cor.

God bless,
bluelake

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

 

[sidbrown]

The Church has never changed the dogma of the necessity of being a member of the Church for salvation…

Sorry but you are mistaken. To be a Catholic one needs to be Sacramentally Baptized…

Oh really?
So a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or unbaptised Catholic child, cannot be saved and they will all go to hell?

 

[chypmonk]

Oh really?
So a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or unbaptised Catholic child, cannot be saved and they will all go to hell?

The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.

 

[sidbrown]

The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.

Oh really?
Where is it stated that this was an infallible decision which could not be changed later on?
So you then state that all Jews, Muslims, Hindhus, Buddists, and non-Baptised Christians will go to hell and cannot be saved?
As far as I can make out, your interpretation might have been the previous teaching of the RCC, but it has been changed in modern times to allow for non-baptised people of good will to be saved.

 

[chypmonk]

Oh really?
…but it has been changed in modern times to allow for non-baptised people of good will to be saved.

Actually I just wanted to see if you really understand these above statements, and I see you do.The 2 statements above are both from Ecumenical Councils. There is no doubt they are infallible.
And often repeated

**INFALLIBLE TEACHINGS ( a.k.a. EX CATHEDRA) **

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra:
“There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”[ Denzinger 430. link]](catecheticsonline.com - )

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… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[Denzinger, 468-469. link]

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum15.htm

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra taken from the PROFESSION OF FAITH in the council of Florence:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[Denzinger 714. link]

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum18.htm

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra Taken from PROFESSION OF FAITH:
“Also all other things taught, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and ecumenical Councils, and especially by the sacred and holy Synod of Trent, … I without hesitation accept and profess; and at the same time all things contrary thereto, and whatever heresies have been condemned, and rejected, and anathematized by the Church, I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize. This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”[Denzinger 1000 link]

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith:
“… And that this faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved. . . .[Denzinger 1473 link]

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

Dogmas don’t change their meaning thru time once pronounced infallible statements are…, well… dogma:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church… operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”[Denzinger 1839]

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.” [Denzinger 1800]

 

[sidbrown]

Actually I just wanted to see if you really understand these above statements, and I see you do.The 2 statements above are both from Ecumenical Councils. There is no doubt they are infallible.
And often repeated

**INFALLIBLE TEACHINGS ( a.k.a. EX CATHEDRA) **

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra:
“There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”[ Denzinger 430. link]](catecheticsonline.com - )

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… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[Denzinger, 468-469. link]

…etc…Denzinger 1800]

Where is the proof that they were infallible. Your sayso does not prove it.
As far as I can see, this is not the official RC teaching today, and my impression from reading various declarations of today is that it is presently taught by the RCC that an unbaptised Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindhu of good will may be saved.
It is only the fringe groups which do not recognise Vatican II that hold the contrary opinion. Should a Catholic go with the fringe groups or should a Catholic go with the present post Vatican II authorities in the RCC ?

 

[chypmonk]

chpymonk,

Maybe we should take another look at Pope Pius IX’s letter:

 

[chypmonk]

Where is the proof that they were infallible. Your sayso does not prove it.
As far as I can see, this is not the official RC teaching today, and my impression from reading various declarations of today is that it is presently taught by the RCC that an unbaptised Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindhu of good will may be saved.
It is only the fringe groups which do not recognise Vatican II that hold the contrary opinion. Should a Catholic go with the fringe groups or should a Catholic go with the present post Vatican II authorities in the RCC ?

If you can’t recognize these as infallible statements then I suggest you study theology some more and then we can talk. There is no use for me to give you a theology lesson because you will think it is some kind of trick. Find out how the Church defines dogmas then come back.

 

[chypmonk]

@Originally Posted by SouthpawLink–continued

When I referred to DS 788, I was referring to Denzinger-Schonmetzer 788, not Denzinger 788; there is a difference in the numbering. DS 788 correlates to Denzinger 413, but that passage actually refers to explicit baptism of desire (of which Pope Innocent III approved).

A number of facts need to be pointed out here.
a. This is a letter to another individual and no letter written simply to another individual can not be universally binding.
b. It was THIS Pope, Innocent III, who prescribed the solemn Profession of Faith:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church outside which we believe no one is saved.” (DNZ 423)
c. It was at the Council of Lateran IV (1215) where THIS Pope solemnly and infallibly defined:
“One indeed is the Catholic Church of the faithful, outside of which no one AT ALL is saved…” [Denzinger 430 link]

In matters of Faith and Morals we are bound only to that which is infallible and universal. No one with a proper Catholic sense, with a proper Catholic understanding of authority, could even compare this private letter of Pope Innocent III to his solemn and infallible definitions, let alone use it AGAINST his infallible declarations.
No one is IN the Church if they have not at least received the Sacrament of Baptism, which is in water only as the Church has infallibly defined. Besides, Pope Innocent III himself made clear:
"In Baptism, two things are always and necessarily required, namely: the words [correct form: Mat.28:19] and the element [matter: water]… you ought not to doubt that they DO NOT have TRUE Baptism in which ONE of them is missing. (DNZ 412)
Which do we stand on: that which is private and fallible, or that which is infallible and universal? Obviously it is the latter.

 

[chypmonk]

@ Originally Posted by SouthpawLink–continued

What I had actually been thinking of, when referrencing DS 788 was Denzinger 388, which corresponds to DS 741. There, Pope Innocent II referred to the writings of St. Augustine (City of God) and St. Ambrose (on the death of Valentinian) in support of baptism of desire, telling the bishop of Cremona to have sacrifices to God for the unbaptized priest who had died.

After having read all of these quotes, it is clear that these are not pronouncements in the proper sense and usage of the word. A pronouncement is, by definition, a universal declaration by the Pope binding on all the faithful. None of these quotes are universal in nature.

NON-infallible statements do not carry as much weight as the infallible statements of the extra-ordinary Magisteriam concerning salvation. The Catholic principle of authority and interpretation, which in short, it is this: non-magisterial or non-infallible documents must be seen in light of and in subjection to infallible Magisterial documents of the Church.
There are a number of points to be made here concerning this particular quote.

1. First of all, this is merely a letter from Pope Innocent II to an unnamed bishop of Cremona. It is, by nature, a PRIVATE correspondance. This should be self evident by the fact that no letter written simply to another individual can be UNIVERSALLY binding. Also, the matter of the letter is not dogmatic, but involves a prudential and disciplinary judgment. So it is not even a matter of faith or morals. Liberals have taken advantage of this letter ever since it was included in Denzinger.
2. Any educated Catholic should notice a problem, or at least become suspicous when reading this. The concerned subject was a PRIEST.(?) It has been defined by the Church that NO MAN can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders validly if he was not FIRST baptized (Council of Nicea, Canon 19). So either this man was already baptized and there was confusion on this, OR he was not a priest, which means there was confusion about his identity. Either way, something is terribly wrong with this whole episode. Do you recognize this? Hence, what is stated cannot be binding since:
   a) no binding document could contain such confusion as this

b) it deals not with doctrine per se.

3.Besides, St. Augustine elsewhere recognized the Catholic position which is opposed to what Pope Innocent III recommends, even though Pope Innocent says he is speaking on the authority of Augustine. And that position was that it is forbidden to offer sacrifices for an unbaptized dead man:
“The Church never prays for those souls lost without Baptism… Mass is offered only for the members of the Mystical Body.” (City of God, Bk. XXI, chap.24)
Pope Innocent II must have forgotten what was disallowed at the Council of Braga (563), which was approved by Pope John III:
“Neither commemoration nor chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without Baptism.”

1. Lastly, there is even the question of who actually wrote this letter. Numerous authorities (including document sources) ascribe it to Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), others to Pope Innocent II. Denzinger even brings up this point in its footnotes. But a gap of 55 years separate the two pontiffs!

So, what do we have with this letter?
A PRIVATE LETTER, of UNCERTAIN DATE, UNCERTAIN AUTHORSHIP and UNCERTAIN DESTINATION, based upon a FALSE reading of St. Augustine having a recommendation which CONTRADICTS the teaching of a prior council approved by the pope of the time, all of which concerns an IMPOSSIBLE situation (an unbaptized priest) which directly contradicts innumerable indisputably valid, solemn and infallible documents.
I should not have to draw a conclusion for you concerning this example: not only is this NOT infallible, it does not even qualify as a document of the Ordinary Magisterium. It is merely a private letter from the Bishop of Rome to some bishop near the east.

 

[chypmonk]

@ Originally Posted by SouthpawLink–continued

Fr. Cekada showed that 14 of the 25 theologians he referred to held baptism of desire to be at least theologically certain, while all of them taught it. A larger sample no doubt would have further confirmed his argument that baptism of desire is held by common consent to be a theological truth.

“certain” is not the same as “de fide” --of the Faith:

Ludwig Ott
"4. A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions). "

trosch.org/the/ottintro.htm

In a later post, you argue for the necessity of sacramental baptism (with which I agree), but you also quote sources which confirm that baptism of desire confers sanctifying grace. Is not sanctifying grace necessary for salvation? The baptismal character imprinted by baptism will add to the glory of those in heaven but will be a mark of shame for those in hell.

I don’t recall accepting Baptism of Desire as real. It is a theory that I hold is wrong completely. My reason is that the forgiveness of sins can not happen outside the Church as defined in Unam Sanctum:
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…
[Denz. 469 link]

TMC,
Before the Second Vatican Council, Msgr. Fenton noted that “[M]ost theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation” (American Ecclesiastical Review, The Holy Office Letter on the Necessity of the Catholic Church: December 1952, pp. 450-461).

The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is not possible without supernatural faith and perfect charity (cf. Suprema Haec Sacra, 8 August 1949).

Agreed supernatural Faith is necessary for Salvation or at least putting no obstacle to it as for example one who has only the habit of Divine Faith, as a infant Sacramentally Baptized, these also can be saved.

An adult catechumen is asked by the Church in the ancient ritual what do they seek? they answer “Faith”. Before baptism their “faith” is only natural but when baptized he/she recieves the supernatural theological virtue of “Faith” with sanctifying grace.

"1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:

• enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
• giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
• allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
  Thus the whole organism of the Christian’s supernatural life has its roots in Baptism. "scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1266

 

[thistle]

To CHYMONK

Why won’t you answer me.

You have not yet responded to my earlier post so I’ll repeat it. I have quoted the Church teaching on Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire and the Church teaches that such baptisms “assure them the salvation thet they were not able to receive through the sacrament”.
Are you telling all of us here that the Church teaching is wrong?

CCC 1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity,assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

CCC 1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

 

[chypmonk]

To CHYMONK

Why won’t you answer me.

You have not yet responded to my earlier post so I’ll repeat it. I have quoted the Church teaching on Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire and the Church teaches that such baptisms “assure them the salvation thet they were not able to receive through the sacrament”.
Are you telling all of us here that the Church teaching is wrong?

CCC 1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity,assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

CCC 1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

Hmmmm… Well… if you haven’t noticed I have been giving serious answers to serious inquires. It takes time to answer all the above and looking up Church documents…which I still haven’t finished but since you are so upset, I will try to respond to you.

The Catholic Catechism of the Catholic is not Church teaching in the sense of binding on the conscience of all the Faithful:

Catechisms are not infallible documents. They are normative teaching - a mixture of infallible and non-infallible theology. There may be theological tendencies of the age that can influence a catechism. For example Limbo of Infants was a common teaching in most catechisms around the whole world for many years but in the 20th century many theologians turned against this teaching.

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."jimmyakin.org/2005/02/ratzinger_on_th.html

God Bless

Have a :wave:nice day

 

[bluelake]

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

I want to thank you for explaining your definition of ‘church’.

As I said before, Jesus is our Savior, not a ‘church’ or churches.
Jesus loves all who he has chosen from the foundation of the world to be his child, and even those who are still outside waiting to come in. Ps.139:13-19
Shall we pray for them.

God bless you,

bluelake

 

[At_Trent]

Where is the proof that they were infallible. Your sayso does not prove it.
As far as I can see, this is not the official RC teaching today, and my impression from reading various declarations of today is that it is presently taught by the RCC that an unbaptised Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindhu of good will may be saved.
It is only the fringe groups which do not recognise Vatican II that hold the contrary opinion. Should a Catholic go with the fringe groups or should a Catholic go with the present post Vatican II authorities in the RCC ?

Good grief, do you honestly believe that there are no churchmen “in full communion” that would disagree with what you just pointed out ?

Just because they aren’t on the internet or speaking their mind in public, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. By that kind of thinking, only orthodox Roman Catholics are capable of heresy. The Pope himself pointed out those who embrace VII must be careful to interpret the documents in light of Tradition.

It’s sickening that H.H. can lift excommunications on clergy, and see them attacked in the same manner as they were while excommunicated. Who is ignoring the pope and being dissident ? Who is ignoring the Bishop of Rome … as well ?

Sir, I’m sorry, but those of similar mindset wouldn’t know a heretic or recognize disobedience and dissidence if they witnessed it.

And what in the good Lord’s name does baptism have to do with the groups you mentioned ? They reject the divinity of Christ, and they reject the New Covenant. They are not ignorant of the Word, they reject it. They reject the Doctrines of the Church that Christ Himself founded.

That, my friend, is how bad it has become. The average Roman Catholic is so brainwashed, he/she thinks any sermon by any member of the clergy trumps all teaching and Doctrine that came before.

Rave on about the disobedient “fringe” if you must, but don’t forget to fear the wolves who know exactly how wrong they have been for 40 years and won’t admit it.

 

[Sir_Knight]

As was already pointed out, the Catechism is NOT an infallible document. However, Church Doctrines & Dogmas ARE considered to be infallible and MUST be accepted by the Catholic faithful …

• Going back in time as early as the days of the Athanasian Creed, it was taught then that “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” (SOURCE: Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 39)
• About 585 A.D., Pope Pelagius II infallibly stated, “If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know that he is condemned and also anathematized (means excommunicated) according to the opinion of the same Fathers… Consider (therefore) the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church, cannot have the Lord. [Gal. 3:7]” (SOURCE: Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 246)
• In 1208 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, catholic, and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 423)
• In 1215 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved…” (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 430)
• In 1302 A.D., Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated, “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 which there is no salvation nor remission of sins…” (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 468)
• In 1302 A.D., by the power invested in him, Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated, “…we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 469)
• In 1442 A.D, Pope Eugenius IV, 1442, at the Council of Florence, reaffirmed this truth. "It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that 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. (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 714)
• The same truth regarding the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation was reaffirmed by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832 A.D.; Pope Pius IX in 1854 A.D.; Pope Pius IX in 1863 A.D.; Pope John XXIII on June 29, 1961 A.D.; Pope John Paul I, on August 27, 1978; Pope John Paul II on October 21, 1981, etc.