A
At_Trent
Guest
So the spirit of VII was driven by clergy who didn’t read the documents ?
- Status
B
BrotherPaulMary
Guest
The reason for the misunderstanding is because people do not understand the controversies of predestination and grace.
The following are church teachings far more commonly taught throughout the century’s.
No man is damned except through his own fault.
God predestines nobody to evil.
If you apply those to the current situation that is saying that everyone outside the church is damned then what those catholic teachings actually mean is.
**
No Catholic is damned except through his own fault, but man who is not a catholic doesn’t matter even though he did not know about Jesus or the Church.
God predestines all those who did not hear about the Catholic Church to hell even those to whom He did not provide the means of entering. **
It is also possible to make the following proposition as a logical necessity of accepting the narrow interpretation of EENS.
A man who is not a catholic, but it is not his own fault that he is not a catholic AND has not committed a mortal sin in his life is damned because of something that is not his own fault.
If you cannot see that this proposition contradicts the Catholic teaching on predestination then start praying.
As you can see the narrow interpretation fails and falls apart.
Therefore Invincible ignorance must be accepted.
Br. Paul
The following are church teachings far more commonly taught throughout the century’s.
No man is damned except through his own fault.
God predestines nobody to evil.
If you apply those to the current situation that is saying that everyone outside the church is damned then what those catholic teachings actually mean is.
**
No Catholic is damned except through his own fault, but man who is not a catholic doesn’t matter even though he did not know about Jesus or the Church.
God predestines all those who did not hear about the Catholic Church to hell even those to whom He did not provide the means of entering. **
It is also possible to make the following proposition as a logical necessity of accepting the narrow interpretation of EENS.
A man who is not a catholic, but it is not his own fault that he is not a catholic AND has not committed a mortal sin in his life is damned because of something that is not his own fault.
If you cannot see that this proposition contradicts the Catholic teaching on predestination then start praying.
As you can see the narrow interpretation fails and falls apart.
Therefore Invincible ignorance must be accepted.
Br. Paul
J
JReducation
Guest
Something that happens with every council, Vatican II is not the exception, as much as people want to make it so, is that the documents produced by the councils are never clearly understood by the generation to whom they are delivered. Often, they are not even correctly understood generations later. Certainly, those generations that are contemporary to the councils have always struggled with the documents.
We have an advantage reading previous conciliar documents, it’s called Historical Distance. Let’s take the Council of Trent. Between us and that council stand 500 years, give or take a few decades, but you get the picture. Between then and now, many writings have come out that have explained the conciliar documents and many of the debates, misinterpretations and incorrect applications have long died out. We did not live through those first hundred years. Therefore, we tend to take a naïve look a them and say to ourselves, “They’re clear and self explanatory, compared to the documents of Vatican II.” This was not the feeling of the people living back then. It actually took several generations of Jesuits to explain them. Despite that, many people still do not understand them correctly; but not as many as those who did not understand them at the time they were promulgated. The same is true of every other council in Catholic history.
The other problem that often happens with conciliar documents and many papal documents is that mistaken attribution of infallibility. Not everything that was produced by the councils of the past or by the popes of the past was taught as dogma. There were certainly dogmas taught, explained and defended. But there were also many writings that were commentaries by the councils and popes. Commentaries often speak to very specific problems. Problems evolve. They get worse or they disappear. When they disappear, the commentaries are not longer necessary. When the problems get worse, new commentaries are needed to help the faithful deal with the current situation, current to them, not necessarily to us. We tend to think that because this pope or that one said something or condemned something that it was his intention to bind the future. This is not always the case. It can be, but is not. Some comments were meant to address those people and bind them, because of the situations that they were dealing with.
This often leads to another problem. When new popes arrive on the scene, they have to deal with the problems as they are today. This often requires another commentary on the current situation. These commentaries, like those of their predecessors, are issued by what is known as the Ordinary Magisterium, meaning that they are binding until such time as the Church says that they are not or they remain binding, but they may require some further explanation in the future, for the sake a clarification.
This is where the modern Catholic begins to get confused. He thinks that the current pope has changed something or is teaching something new. In the worse case scenario, the individual begins to act and talk as if he has a better understanding of the previous commentaries and documents than the pope himself. This is certainly happening on this question. John Paul II wrote Ut Unum Sin/] in which he tries to explain this concept EENS. Unfortunately, too many Catholics are now speaking as if they understand the intent and the meaning of previous popes and councils better than John Paul II. This certainly can be simply a misunderstanding on the part of the individual Catholic; but it can also be spiritual arrogance. The former is has no moral culpability attached to it. A misunderstanding of what Pope John Paul II was saying is not a sin. However, the belief that “I understand the teaching of EENS better than Pope John Paul II,” is a serious sin of spiritual arrogance.
Look at it closely. The individual is pitting his understanding of a teaching of the Church against the Ordinary Magisterium of the day, namely the latest pope to speak on this issue and his clarification of what the teaching EENS really means and how it should be applied. This is a very slippery slope, not for the pope, but for the individual Catholic. Because we are saying that we acknowledge this man as the Father of the Universal Church (Papa). We say that he is the Vicar of Christ and as such must be loved and obeyed. We have no reason or evidence to call into question his credibility, but we pit our understanding against his. Our words, “Holy Father”, “Vicar of Jesus Christ”, “Successor of St. Peter”, “Holder of the Keys” and other titles have little meaning when our actions say, “I know and I understand that he’s wrong and I’m right.” So who is the “Holy Father” the pope or me? Who is the Vicar of Jesus Christ? Who is the Supreme Pontiff? Who is the highest authority in the Church?
Before we proceed down this slope, we must ask ourselves whether or not we truly believe ourselves when we call him, “Holy Father” and “Supreme Pontiff.” The argument that he did not veil his statements under the cloak of infallibility does not hold water. To have authority over the universal Church, the Successor of Peter need not invoke infallibility every time he speaks. Popes rarely do this. But it does not mean that they do not speak authoritatively or that they are buffoons.
They are commenting for the people of their time and trying to explain an ancient teaching that has become confusing or has been misunderstood by the faithful. Often, they are saying that the way their predecessors applied it does not work today, because the circumstances are different. The teaching remains the same, but the application does not. A lot that was added to EENS was not infallible dogma, but emotional rhetoric that came from anger and pain over the Reformation. The dogma has to be sorted out from the anger of that time.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
We have an advantage reading previous conciliar documents, it’s called Historical Distance. Let’s take the Council of Trent. Between us and that council stand 500 years, give or take a few decades, but you get the picture. Between then and now, many writings have come out that have explained the conciliar documents and many of the debates, misinterpretations and incorrect applications have long died out. We did not live through those first hundred years. Therefore, we tend to take a naïve look a them and say to ourselves, “They’re clear and self explanatory, compared to the documents of Vatican II.” This was not the feeling of the people living back then. It actually took several generations of Jesuits to explain them. Despite that, many people still do not understand them correctly; but not as many as those who did not understand them at the time they were promulgated. The same is true of every other council in Catholic history.
The other problem that often happens with conciliar documents and many papal documents is that mistaken attribution of infallibility. Not everything that was produced by the councils of the past or by the popes of the past was taught as dogma. There were certainly dogmas taught, explained and defended. But there were also many writings that were commentaries by the councils and popes. Commentaries often speak to very specific problems. Problems evolve. They get worse or they disappear. When they disappear, the commentaries are not longer necessary. When the problems get worse, new commentaries are needed to help the faithful deal with the current situation, current to them, not necessarily to us. We tend to think that because this pope or that one said something or condemned something that it was his intention to bind the future. This is not always the case. It can be, but is not. Some comments were meant to address those people and bind them, because of the situations that they were dealing with.
This often leads to another problem. When new popes arrive on the scene, they have to deal with the problems as they are today. This often requires another commentary on the current situation. These commentaries, like those of their predecessors, are issued by what is known as the Ordinary Magisterium, meaning that they are binding until such time as the Church says that they are not or they remain binding, but they may require some further explanation in the future, for the sake a clarification.
This is where the modern Catholic begins to get confused. He thinks that the current pope has changed something or is teaching something new. In the worse case scenario, the individual begins to act and talk as if he has a better understanding of the previous commentaries and documents than the pope himself. This is certainly happening on this question. John Paul II wrote Ut Unum Sin/] in which he tries to explain this concept EENS. Unfortunately, too many Catholics are now speaking as if they understand the intent and the meaning of previous popes and councils better than John Paul II. This certainly can be simply a misunderstanding on the part of the individual Catholic; but it can also be spiritual arrogance. The former is has no moral culpability attached to it. A misunderstanding of what Pope John Paul II was saying is not a sin. However, the belief that “I understand the teaching of EENS better than Pope John Paul II,” is a serious sin of spiritual arrogance.
Look at it closely. The individual is pitting his understanding of a teaching of the Church against the Ordinary Magisterium of the day, namely the latest pope to speak on this issue and his clarification of what the teaching EENS really means and how it should be applied. This is a very slippery slope, not for the pope, but for the individual Catholic. Because we are saying that we acknowledge this man as the Father of the Universal Church (Papa). We say that he is the Vicar of Christ and as such must be loved and obeyed. We have no reason or evidence to call into question his credibility, but we pit our understanding against his. Our words, “Holy Father”, “Vicar of Jesus Christ”, “Successor of St. Peter”, “Holder of the Keys” and other titles have little meaning when our actions say, “I know and I understand that he’s wrong and I’m right.” So who is the “Holy Father” the pope or me? Who is the Vicar of Jesus Christ? Who is the Supreme Pontiff? Who is the highest authority in the Church?
Before we proceed down this slope, we must ask ourselves whether or not we truly believe ourselves when we call him, “Holy Father” and “Supreme Pontiff.” The argument that he did not veil his statements under the cloak of infallibility does not hold water. To have authority over the universal Church, the Successor of Peter need not invoke infallibility every time he speaks. Popes rarely do this. But it does not mean that they do not speak authoritatively or that they are buffoons.
They are commenting for the people of their time and trying to explain an ancient teaching that has become confusing or has been misunderstood by the faithful. Often, they are saying that the way their predecessors applied it does not work today, because the circumstances are different. The teaching remains the same, but the application does not. A lot that was added to EENS was not infallible dogma, but emotional rhetoric that came from anger and pain over the Reformation. The dogma has to be sorted out from the anger of that time.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
At_Trent
Guest
So JR, can a person who knows the Gospel exists and rejects the Divinity of Christ and the New Covenant be saved ?
A
AnneElliot
Guest
The CCC is not a papal or conciliar text.
“The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess.” Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 26
Someone already pointed out to you that the thief on the cross died under the Old Covenant.
A
AnneElliot
Guest
So, are you suggesting a man can be born again by water alone without the Holy Ghost? I think you’re reading the text wrong…
“…This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man be born again of water **AND **the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
If you separate the laver of regeneration and its desire, then you are separating “water and the Holy Ghost”… are you sure you want to go there?
A
AnneElliot
Guest
How so?
Lumen Gentium still says persons need to be brought to explicit faith and the Church in order to be saved. Don’t stop at the one part of Lumen Gentium 16, read the last sentence of the paragraph.
LG # 16 “…Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who **enlightens **all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the **missions **with care and attention.”
And what does Vatican II say about the missions?
… Ad Gentes #7 “This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, “who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:45), “neither is there salvation in any other” (Acts 4:12).Therefore, **all **must be **converted **to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.” Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that **faith without which it is impossible **to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel.”
S
StTommyMore
Guest
therefore all who have been validly baptized, and not just mrembers of the institutional htch an be saved.
A
At_Trent
Guest
What is an institutional htch ?
B
BrotherPaulMary
Guest
If he does so while convinced that the Gospel is true - he will be damned - which is the meaning of pertinaciously rejecting the truth mentioned in Pope Pius IX encyclical.
ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9quanto.htm
Go and read the entire encyclical.
As for whether or not one can be considered invincibly ignorant of the TRUTH of the Gospel while being aware of it [ie: of the fact that some hold teach the Gospel not actually knowing that it is true], that is in my view down to God.
I know why you feel so strongly about this. I do too. I think it is a tragic error to lose sight of the fact that we are called to convert and baptize the nations. However we must realize that the Church teaches that there are people whom we did not and could not have reached in the world and that providing they observed the natural law they can gain eternal life.
But this does not mean that we just say - yeah of course they are probably saved. I don’t hold out that much hope at times for people who are not Catholic because they do not have access to the priviledged channels of Grace, but I am not going to judge their Hearts and say they are all without exception in a state of mortal sin, that their ignorance off the Truth is a culpable form of ignorance and they are all damned without exception because the Church does not teach that.
However just because I say this with Pope Pius IX, this does not mean that I assume that they are invincibly ignorant of the Truth either. You pray and use words and example to enlighten their hearts to convert them.
Being catholic means trusting thet God does not allow his Church to err seriously, and if you cannot understand why Pope Pius IX can say what he said about invincible ignorance and the council, and Pope JP2 and the Holy Office under Pius XII, make an act of humility and submit yourself to the church.
I think it can be indicative of a worrying pride, especially if you have not studied Theology and Philosophy in general because you need to see that this truth of EENS needs to be seen in harmony with other Dogmatic truths too.
If you were to read the first three sections of Predestination by Pere Garrigou Lagrange you might see that such a narrow interpretation of EENS is just impossible when compared with the Church’s teaching on predestination.
God Bless
and sorry for a sarcastic post earlier in the thread.
Br. Paul
A
At_Trent
Guest
S
StTommyMore
Guest
The hetrodox one is he who acts as though tradition starts at Trent…
A
AnneElliot
Guest
Baptism is one part… the first part.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis #22 “Only those are to be accounted really members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters of **Baptism ****and **profess the true faith, and have not cut themselves off from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed therefrom, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos #10 “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.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #5 (and #9): “The Church…regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own…The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium…Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adultress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ…He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation.”
A
At_Trent
Guest
Hi Br Paul, first, I didn’t even notice the sarcasm lol. No worries.
The encyclical, I will read all of it, time permitting. I tend to skim over the older papal documents rather than re-read them as necessary in order to walk away convinced I understand them fully. I admit that. I have no issue on the teachings on the ignorant though. I tend to read the explanations of them by reputable clergy. Easier on my simple mind.
If I appear prideful, perhaps I am. I’m just not convinced I’m too far off on this as far as focusing on the implied view here, by some, that there is a possibility a Hindu can be saved. There are Catholics in their midst, so I can’t assume they are ignorant. If it be to God to judge whether they are indeed ignorant, and I’m just not understanding how they could be, fine. I accept that He may be a tad better to judge than myself lol. But, I’m just not able to assume the possibility that ignorance is indeed still widespread in light of the amount of time that has passed since Christ revealed the New Covenant.
With minimal effort, one can see that the Church has been fighting heresy and error for a very long time. Since day one it seems. My passion in all of this truly is in sadness of the seemingly increasing fade of the memory of martyrs. As you mention, we don’t do enough.
Again, I did stop and consider whether my understanding of invincible ignorance is lacking after reading your post, but then I keep thinking of quote after quote of Church Father’s, Popes, and Saints past.
The safe way to support the Church is to defend Her current Hierarchy these days. One will get a lot of back pats in the name of obedience, and Christ’s promise. Certainly, we can never forget His promise, for to do so, leaves us wide open to despair and the snares if the Satan. But how can it be argued that those who see a contradiction between a current teaching, or at least what the majority make of it, are wrong to point out possible errors, when they feel a need to do so because of what has been widely accepted, by the majority, in the past ?
I won’t post the quotes I speak of any longer in this thread, we’ve all seen them, and there are enough here already. I’ve just read so much, time after time, of similar writings as below, that I just can’t reconcile the current understanding of EENS some are promoting. There are just too many of them, all saying the same thing, and they have not been questioned by Rome.
As of now, I can’t retract my view, other than my earlier claim Fr Feeney was correct. But I will read the 2 texts you referred me to before I return to comment. If you can take time to offer it in good faith, I can take time to read it. Perhaps I am a spiritual mess
We’ll see.
Thank you, and God Bless
A
At_Trent
Guest
Oh please Carl, I never said that. I just posted a quote from Innocent III lol.
Tradition started around 33 AD
Stabbing at my user name :tsktsk:
A
AnneElliot
Guest
From Fr. Frederick Faber’s The Precious Blood:
B
BrotherPaulMary
Guest
You must remember that there are lots of statements by the above Pope’s saints and Theologians - that nobody is damned except through their own fault.As of now, I can’t retract my view, other than my earlier claim Fr Feeney was correct. But I will read the 2 texts you referred me to before I return to comment. If you can take time to offer it in good faith, I can take time to read it. Perhaps I am a spiritual mess
We’ll see.
Thank you, and God Bless
The only two points that I think you need to admit are
- That if a person is invincibly ignorant of the true faith and if They have not committed a mortal sin that they can be saved.
- That EENS refers to those who are outside the Church through their own fault.
Basically just because the above propositions - one and two are contained in the Popes encyclical and in magisterial pronouncements since then - are actually Catholic teachings, this does not mean that our command to go out and convert the nations is any less true.
God Bless
Br. Paul
A
AnneElliot
Guest
You’ve left out Original Sin…
C
chypmonk
Guest
Many Baptism of Desire advocates (BoDers) try and quote the Errors of Michael Du Bay in favor of baptism of desire, but they are not on point at all.
Let us look at 2 of th main ones:
Errors of Michael Du Bay, Condemned by St. Pius V in “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567:
“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 remissions of sins.”**- Condemned
“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.” **- Condemnedhttp://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma11.php
Michael Du Bay’s propositions above are condemned because they say that perfect charity can be in catechumens and penitents* without the remission of sins.* It says nothing about whether or not perfect charity can be in catechumens, which would be with the remission of sins.
He was dividing PERFECT CHARITY and the REMISSION of SINS. He was separating the two, and made leaflets, pamphlets etc. stating the above propositions.
Again, Du Bay’s propositions above are false because one cannot have perfect charity without the remission of sins.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra:
“Justification … is not merely remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man… Hence man through Jesus Christ, into whom he is ingrafted, receives in the said justification together with the remission of sins all these gifts infused at the same time: faith, hope and charity.”[Denzinger 799-800 link]
Faith, hope, charity and the remission of sins are inseparable in a justified person.
So, Michael Du Bay was justly condemned for his false theory that catechumens and penitents can have perfect charity without the remission of sins.
His theory contradicts Catholic teaching and when a pope condemns propositions like the above false propositions of Michael Du Bay, he condemns the entire proposition as it is written. We can’t choose parts and ignore others it is as a whole condemned.
In condemning such an error, no assertion is made positively or negatively, about whether catechumens can have remission of sins with perfect charity, which is not the topic of Michael Du Bay’s statements.
But we know from other teachings that unbaptized catechumens cannot have the remission of sins at all since they are outside the Church.
As for 1917 Canon Law? This was already covered it is not a source of infallible teaching.
Definition infallible #4-Roman Catholic Church . immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church.dictionary.reference.com/browse/infallible
Just reverse this definition to see how powerful a FALLIBLE canon law is:
NoT infallible-- not immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters, even of faith or morals, NOT by virtue of a promise made by Christ to the Church.
B
BrotherPaulMary
Guest
CHPYMUNK:
That should be sufficient.
p.s Original sin is a nasty bugger to understand. It seems that it can exclude infants from Heaven (but not perfect happiness), however since the Popes say that those who obey the natural law can gain eternal life it seems that the only conclusion one can draw is that original sin can be remitted in adults without a baptism when they live a Holy life.
This would seem to have been the case before Christ’s incarnation - so given that Christ came to save the world - it would seem to be theologically incorrect to think that Christ would withhold that mercy once he had come.
Br. Paul
Let me say what proposition is not condemned.
- “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 with the remissions of sins."
That should be sufficient.
p.s Original sin is a nasty bugger to understand. It seems that it can exclude infants from Heaven (but not perfect happiness), however since the Popes say that those who obey the natural law can gain eternal life it seems that the only conclusion one can draw is that original sin can be remitted in adults without a baptism when they live a Holy life.
This would seem to have been the case before Christ’s incarnation - so given that Christ came to save the world - it would seem to be theologically incorrect to think that Christ would withhold that mercy once he had come.
Br. Paul
- Status