Salvation outside the Church

[At_Trent]

What we are seeing here is certain Catholics ignoring the fact that our Tradition is a living tradition. It grows. It develops. It changes, albeit with a continuity.

Please note what has changed.

 

[StTommyMore]

No change. Just development. There is a big difference that I don’t have time to get into right now. Let’s just say popes have declared it heretical to say that dogmas evolve. They must be understood in the same sense as the Church has always understood them as infallibly declared by Vatican I. Now that sense itself does not mean that we can then understand more over the ages, but it’s still the same essential doctrine understood in the same way. No salvation outside the Church still means the same thing. It seems though that over the centuries of pondering this truth as well as other truths such as that God wills all men to be saved and that he makes available to all men the graces needed for salvation and that there are many who are invincibly ignorant of the truth, then the Church over time understands that those who are not formally members of the Church could still be united to her through perfect charity, perfect contrition, and a desire to do God’s will and therefore desire baptism. Such acts would be exceptionally rare since even many Catholics do not find perfect contrition to come easily when they have been taught to make such acts throughout their life, so someone without such knowledge of this necessity would be in serious trouble, and if knowledge of the necessity comes, then so does the obligation to continue to seek the truth.

But the Church’s understanding of what the Body Of Christ is, who the People of God are Can develop over time. Salvation outside the Church is by no means easy to articulate, but to say one must be a card-carrying Catholic or be doomed to hell is not an accurate statement. What can we say about those that are seeking truth, but the deplorable conduct of Catholics has prevented them from investigating the Church. Sometimes it is our own implicit triumphalism that keeps people out of the Church. You forget that the Church has a spiritual as well as institutional dimension. One can participate in one without participating ion the other, though participating in both simultaneously is the Way God has provided.

 

[StTommyMore]

Please note what has changed.

Forms of worship. Our understanding of who constitutes the People of God. Celibacy requirements for the Priesthood. The process of canonization. Quite a bit has changed.

 

[chypmonk]

Interestingly, you did not answer my question as to where you received that information concerning the catechism of Pius X. Did you invent it, misremember it, or did you read it in a Feenyist publication of some sort? Why would you conclude that Pius X was not involved in its publication when all the sources I’ve posted indicate otherwise? The point is not moot or unimportant either since Catechisms themselves, though they are not infallible documents, are still a part of the ordinary teaching authority of the Church.

Between approved catechisms and de fide falls under the ordinary Magisterium. The other sources are the opinions of individuals that I would have to read in their full context. The point of a catechism is that it is a summary of what the Church teaches compiled from other sources, so while it is not infallible declaration in and of itself, it does state what the Church already believes. When we see a statement in the catechism, we then should look to other sources from which the catechism gained its information. Doctors of the Church, popes, etc taught baptism of desire.

I left it out intentionally so that you would not try to read into this text some kind of support to your conspiracy theory that Pius X’s original was tampered with by some modernist who added in that baptism of desire stuff. If you read it, it says “the text selected…” The question is who did the selecting! If the selector and approver was Pius X, as the sources seem to indicate, then everything else is irrelevant. Furthermore, the modifications were not done to Pius’ text but to documents already in use by the hierarchies of those locations. This fact also points to the correct understanding that this final compiled version of the catechism was promulgated under Pius’ authority and demonstrates the existing belief at that time just like the Baltimore catechism, which also clearly depicts baptism of desire.

I answered as best I could and you want to continue down an alley that will lead nowhere. I was writing of the top of my head from memory. I thought that was clear from my context. If it wasn’t then I apologize.

You are avoiding answering the main point yourself which I did back-up with Papal encyclicals about the error of belonging to the Soul of the Church and not to the Body of the Church.

Do you agree that this is an error or not in the Pius X Catechism ? Isn’t that the main point? Not if he literally wrote it? If you think it is not an error could you provide authoritative documentation other than a catechism?

For other readers so you don’t have to try to find the points we are dicussing check out post #128(link here) to be filled in.

also that Catechisms do not have authority in themselves post #57(link here)

PS: @ tal The use of the word “heretic” in this discussion is off no help and uncharitable. This is a complicated matter for many so let us try to show some charity.

 

[una_fides]

But the Church’s understanding of what the Body Of Christ is, who the People of God are Can develop over time. Salvation outside the Church is by no means easy to articulate, but to say one must be a card-carrying Catholic or be doomed to hell is not an accurate statement. What can we say about those that are seeking truth, but the deplorable conduct of Catholics has prevented them from investigating the Church. Sometimes it is our own implicit triumphalism that keeps people out of the Church. You forget that the Church has a spiritual as well as institutional dimension. One can participate in one without participating ion the other, though participating in both simultaneously is the Way God has provided.

It depends on what you mean by “develop.” Some people use that word to mean change and others to mean… well develop, which means to deepen in understanding of the same unaltered truth. You say that it’s our triumphalism that keeps people out of the Church, but I would counter that much more so it is the watering down of the truth and preaching that anyone can get into heaven without having recourse to the Church that keeps people comfortable with their present status quo. To get people to dramatically alter their way of life, you need a very serious reason. How about hell! Most people go there. Jesus talked about hell more than heaven. It’s very difficult to enter heaven but easy to go to hell. Yet, how often does hell actually get brought up at all anymore? Pride and selfishness keeps people out of the Church more than anything else. They want to do it their way rather than God’s way. God’s grace leads all people to the fullness of the truth, which is the Catholic Church. They resist this grace, put the truth on the shelf, and carry on with their lives unchanged and on their way to judgment. The Church cannot change her infallible definitions, and these truths must be adhered to with divine Catholic faith. Read the many infallible quotes on my blog on NSOC listed in my signature line. Tell me if you firmly believe them to be true.

 

[StTommyMore]

It depends on what you mean by “develop.” Some people use that word to mean change and others to mean… well develop, which means to deepen in understanding of the same unaltered truth. You say that it’s our triumphalism that keeps people out of the Church, but I would counter that much more so it is the watering down of the truth and preaching that anyone can get into heaven without having recourse to the Church that keeps people comfortable with their present status quo. To get people to dramatically alter their way of life, you need a very serious reason. How about hell! Most people go there. Jesus talked about hell more than heaven. It’s very difficult to enter heaven but easy to go to hell. Yet, how often does hell actually get brought up at all anymore? Pride and selfishness keeps people out of the Church more than anything else. They want to do it their way rather than God’s way. God’s grace leads all people to the fullness of the truth, which is the Catholic Church. They resist this grace, put the truth on the shelf, and carry on with their lives unchanged and on their way to judgment. The Church cannot change her infallible definitions, and these truths must be adhered to with divine Catholic faith. Read the many infallible quotes on my blog on NSOC listed in my signature line. Tell me if you firmly believe them to be true.

I just love the attitude here. “Thank God I am A Catholic!” Not all Catholics go to heaven, and I know many non-Catholics that live out the Gospel message beeter than most Catholics I know. Go read City of God to deepen your own understanding of Church.

 

[una_fides]

I answered as best I could and you want to continue down an alley that will lead nowhere. I was writing of the top of my head from memory. I thought that was clear from my context. If it wasn’t then I apologize.

You are avoiding answering the main point yourself which I did back-up with Papal encyclicals about the error of belonging to the Soul of the Church and not to the Body of the Church.

Do you agree that this is an error or not in the Pius X Catechism ? Isn’t that the main point? Not if he literally wrote it? If you think it is not an error could you provide authoritative documentation other than a catechism?

Here is some more of the context for Satis Cognitum that helps us to understand better what is being communicated:
For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ - “Now you are the body of Christ” (I Cor. xii., 27) - and precisely because it is a body is the Church visible: and because it is the body of Christ is it living and energizing, because by the infusion of His power Christ guards and sustains it, just as the vine gives nourishment and renders fruitful the branches united to it. And as in animals the vital principle is unseen and invisible, and is evidenced and manifested by the movements and action of the members, so the principle of supernatural life in the Church is clearly shown in that which is done by it.
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: as also are those who regard the Church as a human institution which claims a certain obedience in discipline and external duties, but which is without the perennial communication of the gifts of divine grace, and without all that which testifies by constant and undoubted signs to the existence of that life which is drawn from God. It is assuredly as 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. As Christ, the Head and Exemplar, is not wholly in His visible human nature, which Photinians and Nestorians assert, nor wholly in the invisible divine nature, as the Monophysites hold, but is one, from and in both natures, visible and invisible; so the mystical body of Christ is the true Church, only because its visible parts draw life and power from the supernatural gifts and other things whence spring their very nature and essence. But since the Church is such by divine will and constitution, such it must uniformly remain to the end of time. If it did not, then it would not have been founded as perpetual, and the end set before it would have been limited to some certain place and to some certain period of time; both of which are contrary to the truth. The union consequently of visible and invisible elements because it harmonizes with the natural order and by God’s will belongs to the very essence of the Church, must necessarily remain so long as the Church itself shall endure.
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm
Pope Leo here is explaining that the Church is not a body alone or a soul alone but that the true Church has both a body and soul, which is inseparable to the extent that there is not a separate soul of the Church and a separate body but they are united in one Catholic Church. Now what Pius X’s catechism proposes is that it can be that one could be a member of this Church through being united to the soul while being invincibly ignorant of the necessity of belonging to the body. Such a person would truly be a member and united to the Church but would not be visibly united to the body. Membership in the Church is not dependent upon any other witness except God alone, and God alone weighs the hearts and its desires. If a person explicitly desires water baptism, but is unable to attain it, and has made an act of perfect contrition and has perfect charity for God, then he is united to the Church through his desire. If he is hindered from receiving the sacrament and dies in such a state, God would judge the person’s heart. His salvation is not dependent upon whether others thought him to be in the Church. It is dependent upon his desire, which unites him to the Church. Now if someone has a simple desire, but is unwilling to act upon it, then this desire would not be salutary but would actually condemn them. Therefore, with such a desire for baptism, the person must have a willingness to complete the action, which only God himself can judge.

 

[una_fides]

I just love the attitude here. “Thank God I am A Catholic!” Not all Catholics go to heaven, and I know many non-Catholics that live out the Gospel message beeter than most Catholics I know. Go read City of God to deepen your own understanding of Church.

Then why are you Catholic? Sounds like by your reasoning that you would better live out the “gospel message” outside the Church. Did you bother reading those infallible declarations? Do you disagree with them? Just because you know a lot of unholy Catholics that do not live out their faith does not make the Catholic faith false. It just makes them poor Catholics. And what exactly do you define as constituting “living out the ‘gospel message’”? Didn’t Jesus say to go and teach them all things that he commanded? Not just some but all. Furthermore, without the sacrament of confession, how are your non-Catholic friends receiving forgiveness for the sins they are committing? How can they grow in the “gospel message” when Jesus said that he is the Vine and that we need to abide in him and the way he says we abide in him is through eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Your non-Catholic friends do not have confession and therefore forgiveness of their mortal sins and are missing out on the greatest spiritual strength imaginable, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist! You are judging from an outside perspective, but God judges the heart and the state of the soul. Your protestant friends may look nice on the outside, [edited by moderator] they are missing that sanctifying grace that comes through the sacraments. They need the sacraments, which communicate God’s saving grace to them.

 

[una_fides]

You are avoiding answering the main point yourself which I did back-up with Papal encyclicals about the error of belonging to the Soul of the Church and not to the Body of the Church.

Do you agree that this is an error or not in the Pius X Catechism ? Isn’t that the main point? Not if he literally wrote it? If you think it is not an error could you provide authoritative documentation other than a catechism?

The quote in Mortalium Animos seems to not be distinguishing between the body and soul of the Church separately but is instead referring to the Church as the body of Christ. In this way, one cannot be separated from the Body of Christ and still be a member of the Church. By “scattered abroad and disunited,” Pius XII is referring to those groups of protestant sects dispersed throughout the world and is refuting the error that anyone who believes in Christ is somehow united to the Church, which is a doctrine held by many protestants. He did not have in mind to refute the commonly held and understood belief that baptism can be received in re OR in voto as the Council of Trent *and *the 1917 Code of Canon Law both clearly state both using different Latin words for the word “or,” which makes it so that it could not be any less clear that the proper desire for baptism is capable of eliciting the effect of the sacrament, just as perfect contrition with a desire to go to confession as soon as possible for us is able to attain for us the graces from that sacrament. You must admit that the defense concerning Trent and the Code of Canon Law is weak, especially when you have official interpretations of those both understanding it clearly as stating that baptism is capable of being received in voto.

 

[sidbrown]

It’s EENS or Heresy people.

Size of font edited by moderator.

If what you say is true, why does the Holy Roman Catholic Church allow non-Catholics to receive the Most Sacred Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion?
By non-Catholics I mean people such as Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox?

 

[sidbrown]

Please note what has changed.

Previously, it was taught that Jews, Muslims and Hindus could not be saved. Now it is taught that they can be saved.
Previously it was infallibly taught in an ecumenical council that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Now it is taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
Previously it was taught that it is permissable to use torture to extract confessions. Now it is taught that it is immoral.
Previously it was taught that slaves must be subject to their masters. Slavery was allowed in the past. Now it is taught that slavery is immoral.
Previously it was taught that women should wear headcovering in Church. Now women give out Holy Communion even in some cases with revealing costumes.
Previously it was taught that only the priest can touch the Host, since his hands have been anointed with special oil. Now it is taught that it is OK for anyone in the state of grace to take Holy Communion in the hand.
Previously it was taught that there should be only sacred music and that all profane music was prohibited at liturgy or Mass. Now they have all kinds of rock and roll music, dancing, swaying to and fro, clapping of hands, clowns, etc, at the Catholic Mass.
And more.

 

[StTommyMore]

Then why are you Catholic? Sounds like by your reasoning that you would better live out the “gospel message” outside the Church. Did you bother reading those infallible declarations? Do you disagree with them? Just because you know a lot of unholy Catholics that do not live out their faith does not make the Catholic faith false. It just makes them poor Catholics. And what exactly do you define as constituting “living out the ‘gospel message’”? Didn’t Jesus say to go and teach them all things that he commanded? Not just some but all. Furthermore, without the sacrament of confession, how are your non-Catholic friends receiving forgiveness for the sins they are committing? How can they grow in the “gospel message” when Jesus said that he is the Vine and that we need to abide in him and the way he says we abide in him is through eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Your non-Catholic friends do not have confession and therefore forgiveness of their mortal sins and are missing out on the greatest spiritual strength imaginable, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist! You are judging from an outside perspective, but God judges the heart and the state of the soul. Your protestant friends may look nice on the outside, as the pharisees themselves did, but inside they are missing that sanctifying grace that comes through the sacraments. They need the sacraments, which communicate God’s saving grace to them.

i am Catholic because it is True. I also recognize that Go is not bound by the Sacraments. How are they receiving forgiveness of sins? Perfect contrition. As far as being Pharisees, let me leave you with a quote: "When Christ condemned the Pharisees, make sure he did not have you in mind (Quentin de la Bedoyere) This means that we were not given the admoitions of the Pharisees to identify thr hypocrisy of others. It is so we can identify our own shortcomings. I find triumphalism to be the epitome of the very behavior Christ wa warning about both in his condemnation of the Pharisees and in many of his parables.

 

[una_fides]

i am Catholic because it is True.

Excellent. So how do you know that something the Catholic Church teaches is true? Do you believe in infallibility? Do you believe specifically in papal infallibility and in the infallibility of dogmatic statements within General Councils?

I also recognize that Go is not bound by the Sacraments.

This statement is often misunderstood, as people often misinterpret it to meant that God somehow just saves any person he wants regardless of their dispositions. Nothing could be further from the truth. What this statement means is that the grace of the sacraments can reach a person through desire. God is not bound by the sacraments means that if the person properly desires the sacraments is unable to receive them, God is not bound that the person would be unable to receive the graces of the sacrament until its actual physical reception. Hence, baptism of desire and forgiveness of sins with perfect contrition and a desire for confession asap. While God is not bound to the sacraments, we most certainly are! The Sacraments are also normatively required: for example, if one is in the middle of a desert and no water is available to conduct the rite of Baptism in the proper way, as Christ desires we be baptised, one is still “baptised” by desire if he would be baptized in the proper way if the means were available to him. This does not make the rites less important; it only demonstrates the power of Christ’s mercy. One who has no priest available may make a spiritual Communion and receive the fruits of the Eucharist. A perfect act of contrition can give one the fruits of Confession even though no priest is available. And so on. The point: God is not bound by the Sacraments; we are bound by the Sacraments!
fisheaters.com/101.html

 

[una_fides]

How are they [protestants] receiving forgiveness of sins? Perfect contrition.

And how are they so easily making these acts of perfect contrition when they do not even know what perfect contrition is? The Baltimore Catechism does a great job of explaining the serious predicament that protestants are in by not being able to participate regularly in the sacraments. Think about how often you sin or have sinned while still having the sacraments available and how the sacraments removed those sins and most certainly united your soul to God. Then think about how non-Catholics are not able to receive those sacraments and do not know about the necessity to make acts of perfect contrition: **Baltimore Catechism

• 1. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?**
  A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.
  …
  In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.

…

But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister – not being a true priest – has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition – that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic – with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts – might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.
I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects.
…
I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bcreed09.htm

I find triumphalism to be the epitome of the very behavior Christ wa warning about both in his condemnation of the Pharisees and in many of his parables.

I am curious how you yourself would define triumphalism. Could you please provide your own definition.

 

[StTommyMore]

And how are they so easily making these acts of perfect contrition when they do not even know what perfect contrition is? The Baltimore Catechism does a great job of explaining the serious predicament that protestants are in by not being able to participate regularly in the sacraments. Think about how often you sin or have sinned while still having the sacraments available and how the sacraments removed those sins and most certainly united your soul to God. Then think about how non-Catholics are not able to receive those sacraments and do not know about the necessity to make acts of perfect contrition: **Baltimore Catechism

• 1. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?**
  A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.
  …
  In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.

…

But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister – not being a true priest – has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition – that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic – with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts – might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.
I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects.
…
I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bcreed09.htm

I am curious how you yourself would define triumphalism. Could you please provide your own definition.

Triumphalism: “I am Catholic, and therefore objectively superior to all others”

The Baltimore Catechism is about rote memorization, and not about actually understanding the faith. You should use the new Catechism

 

[At_Trent]

Forms of worship. Our understanding of who constitutes the People of God. Celibacy requirements for the Priesthood. The process of canonization. Quite a bit has changed.

I’m not talking about the sweeping about face, I meant Doctrine.

EENS - What has changed that would require a Roman Catholic to accept the claim an educated pagan can be saved ?

All I’m saying, is one who desires to be in communion with, and accepts ALL Doctrine and Dogmas of, Holy Mother Church, can be saved.

If a pagan lies on his deathbed and repents, and accepts the Doctrine and Dogmas of the Church, sincerely, then yes, I believe the person may be saved if it be God’s will. The person just had better find a way to communicate it with God before his/her last breath. And ideally, have a priest by his/her side to secure the soul.

 

[At_Trent]

Previously, it was taught that Jews, Muslims and Hindus could not be saved. Now it is taught that they can be saved.
Previously it was infallibly taught in an ecumenical council that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Now it is taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
Previously it was taught that it is permissable to use torture to extract confessions. Now it is taught that it is immoral.
Previously it was taught that slaves must be subject to their masters. Slavery was allowed in the past. Now it is taught that slavery is immoral.
Previously it was taught that women should wear headcovering in Church. Now women give out Holy Communion even in some cases with revealing costumes.
Previously it was taught that only the priest can touch the Host, since his hands have been anointed with special oil. Now it is taught that it is OK for anyone in the state of grace to take Holy Communion in the hand.
Previously it was taught that there should be only sacred music and that all profane music was prohibited at liturgy or Mass. Now they have all kinds of rock and roll music, dancing, swaying to and fro, clapping of hands, clowns, etc, at the Catholic Mass.
And more.

Let’s stick with Doctrine. I should have been clear on that, so my bad.

EENS - What changes have been made, by decree, to it ?

 

[At_Trent]

If what you say is true, why does the Holy Roman Catholic Church allow non-Catholics to receive the Most Sacred Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion?
By non-Catholics I mean people such as Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox?

The 23 autonomous Churches ARE catholic.

 

[SouthpawLink]

Triumphalism: “I am Catholic, and therefore objectively superior to all others”

The Baltimore Catechism is about rote memorization, and not about actually understanding the faith. You should use the new Catechism

The Baltimore Catechism does a better job at clearly and concisely presenting the Faith. The new Catechism, however, is sometimes vague. What does, “The plan of salvation also includes… the Muslims” (n. 841) mean? How are they included in God’s plan of salvation, other than that they must convert to the one true religion in order to be saved? Why does the new Catechism, based on Vatican II, find it necessary to take a tour through the world’s religions instead of simply stating that they must convert to the Catholic Faith?

Remember these words of the new Catechism: “[T]he one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church” (n. 2105)… ? Is that triumphalism?

chypmonk,
My point for bringing up the Roman Martyrology is that theologians unanimously regard it as an organ of Sacred Tradition, and as such, it must be accepted. You cannot simply write off the Acts of the Martyrs by saying, ‘Oh, they’re probably inaccurate, so four examples of venerated, yet unbaptized saints do not matter nor count against the argument of the water-baptism-only doctrine.’

What’s more, allow me to submit a post I recently made at another forum, on the same subject (EENS):

How can two saintly popes (the only two canonized popes in the last 697 years: St. Celestine V was canonized by Clement V in 1313) so blatantly misunderstand or contradict the well-known dogma, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus?

“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 sin” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, A.D. 1302: Dz. 468).

• There is no remission of sins outside the Church.

“It is certainly clear that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not first entered it through the gateway of baptism” (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, chap. 2: Dz. 895).

• Catechumens, who are unbaptized, are not under the jurisdiction of the Church; they are not actual members. This is confirmed by the teaching of Pope Pius XII:

“Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, and have not, to their misfortune, separated themselves from the structure of the Body, or for very serious sins have not been excluded by lawful authority” (Mystici Corporis Christi, n. 22: Dz. 2286).

• So, in order to be inside the Church and receive the remission of sin, you must be an actual, baptized member, right? If this is true, then both Ss. Pius V and Pius X seriously contradicted the often-defined/reaffirmed dogma of the Church.

Pope St. Pius V condemned the following propositions:

"31. 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.

"32. That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.

"33. 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.

"43. In persons who are penitent before the sacrament of absolution, and in catechumens before baptism, there is true justification, yet separated from the remission of sin.

“71. 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” (Ex omnibus afflictionibus, A.D. 1567: Dz. 1031-33, 1043, 1071).

• Here we learn that catechumens can have perfect charity, which necessarily includes the remission of sins, and that this can happen before baptism, even when not in a case of necessity or martyrdom.

Pope St. Pius X was largely responsible for the 1917 Code of Canon Law, of which canon 1239 §2 reads:

“Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.”

My English translation reads: “Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be reckoned as baptized.”

So, both Ss. Pius V and Pius X taught rather authoritatively that unbaptized catechumens, who were not actual members of the Church by their lack of baptism (MCC, n. 22), could obtain the remission of sins and be saved. Were these two saintly popes in fact heretics?

 

[At_Trent]

So, both Ss. Pius V and Pius X taught rather authoritatively that unbaptized catechumens, who were not actual members of the Church by their lack of baptism (MCC, n. 22), could obtain the remission of sins and be saved. Were these two saintly popes in fact heretics?

No heresy, because that’s it in a nut shell, the desire to be baptized and enter into Christ’s Church. The fact that they are catechumens is the definitive distinction.