A
AnneElliot
Guest
Not explicitly. In order to reach that “idea” one must read into the Conciliar texts.
You did not answer my question… can a man be born again of water without the Holy Spirit?
- Status
You did not answer my question… can a man be born again of water without the Holy Spirit?
S
StTommyMore
Guest
I have not mentioned it because no one has claimed that salvation has any source except through th Church, but there seems to be a misunderstanding of what the Church is. QUite frankly, there is not enough room to go into that kind of discussion, and most of it you can get by reading Cardinal Dulles’s classic work on the subject.
J
JReducation
Guest
The principle of infallibility is being abused by many Catholics. To be honest, how often have popes invoked infallibility?
If we reduced our assent only to that which has been explicitly stated as infallible, we can reduce the entire Catholic faith to a spiral notebook. Popes have said many things authoritatively, without making them Ex-Cathedra statements. In fact, he only times that this has been invoked as been to decree the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
As far as councils, there are infallible doctrines that have been defended by the councils, but the commentaries on the doctrines do not fall under the umbrella of infallibility. The same applies to other papal teachings.
Our current Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith made this very clear in his dissertation on Humanae Vitae. He explained that while the condemnation of artificial birth control is a infallible teaching, because it is rooted in the scriptures and the Tradition of the Fathers, the other comments and observations in the encyclical do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility.
However, he went on to explain, that because these comments and observations came from the Ordinary Magisterium, they required the assent of the faithful. We are bound to assent, even when something is not declared Ex-Cathedra or is not part of the Tradition handed down to us by the Fathers, etc. Why? Because Tradition has handed down to us the necessity of remaining in communion with Peter and the other Apostles. This assent is based on our shared belief in Peter’s authority to rule and teach the Church.
Fratenally,
Br. JR, OSF
If we reduced our assent only to that which has been explicitly stated as infallible, we can reduce the entire Catholic faith to a spiral notebook. Popes have said many things authoritatively, without making them Ex-Cathedra statements. In fact, he only times that this has been invoked as been to decree the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
As far as councils, there are infallible doctrines that have been defended by the councils, but the commentaries on the doctrines do not fall under the umbrella of infallibility. The same applies to other papal teachings.
Our current Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith made this very clear in his dissertation on Humanae Vitae. He explained that while the condemnation of artificial birth control is a infallible teaching, because it is rooted in the scriptures and the Tradition of the Fathers, the other comments and observations in the encyclical do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility.
However, he went on to explain, that because these comments and observations came from the Ordinary Magisterium, they required the assent of the faithful. We are bound to assent, even when something is not declared Ex-Cathedra or is not part of the Tradition handed down to us by the Fathers, etc. Why? Because Tradition has handed down to us the necessity of remaining in communion with Peter and the other Apostles. This assent is based on our shared belief in Peter’s authority to rule and teach the Church.
Fratenally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
tal
Guest
First of all, give me the dogma where that is defined {invincible ignorance}, second thing if you not a catholic then you are not baptized, if you die without baptism, you go to hell! It is the teaching magisterium that we are to get the interpretation from regarding scripture and not us thats why there is so much heresy and error in the world today. We are not protected by the Holy Spirit regarding faith and morals, not even saints, they mad mistakes too! You should be very careful what you say to people on this site because you will be responsible for what you say, by God! 1st. Epistle of Saint Peter 4:18 And if a just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
S
StTommyMore
Guest
If God desires that none should parish, but all should come to repentance, then it stands to reason that there is an opportunity of salvation (though the details of this have non been revealed) to those ho have had no opportunity to come to belief. Once you hear the Gospel, your accountability begins to increase.
T
tal
Guest
the current Prefect of the Congregation of Faith also respects muslims and jews, so I wouldn’t follow antipopes, wake up and compare what the fathers of the early church have always taught up until vatican ll and what is taught now, it is diametrically different {opposite}!The principle of infallibility is being abused by many Catholics. To be honest, how often have popes invoked infallibility?
If we reduced our assent only to that which has been explicitly stated as infallible, we can reduce the entire Catholic faith to a spiral notebook. Popes have said many things authoritatively, without making them Ex-Cathedra statements. In fact, he only times that this has been invoked as been to decree the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
As far as councils, there are infallible doctrines that have been defended by the councils, but the commentaries on the doctrines do not fall under the umbrella of infallibility. The same applies to other papal teachings.
Our current Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith made this very clear in his dissertation on Humanae Vitae. He explained that while the condemnation of artificial birth control is a infallible teaching, because it is rooted in the scriptures and the Tradition of the Fathers, the other comments and observations in the encyclical do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility.
However, he went on to explain, that because these comments and observations came from the Ordinary Magisterium, they required the assent of the faithful. We are bound to assent, even when something is not declared Ex-Cathedra or is not part of the Tradition handed down to us by the Fathers, etc. Why? Because Tradition has handed down to us the necessity of remaining in communion with Peter and the other Apostles. This assent is based on our shared belief in Peter’s authority to rule and teach the Church.
Fratenally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
simple_soul
Guest
*Well, even if he did, which I very highly doubt he did, calling a spade a spade is just that.It’s ok, he calls me Turkey
But taking a stab at some one through deliberately not using their Full title, whether you did it deliberately or not …:tsktsk:
L
laszlo
Guest
Let me say it again. Absilutely there is no salvation outside the Church.
However: Now the Church has three territories: the Triumphant Church, the Suffering Church and the Militant Church. Ultimately there will be just one everlasting Church, the Triumphant Church, and everyone who does not belong to the Triumphant Church is damned, he is in the Hell.
This is strict and never contested dogma of the Church.
Those who are in the Triumphant Church see face to face the Trinity, they see our Lord Jesus Christ in His full divinity and full humanity, they see His beautiful institution the Church in all the glory of the hierarchy; they see the effect of the Sacraments, so the faith is replaced by certitude, and their will is lead by the plenitude of God.
It belongs to Jesus Christ and only to Him, who will be member of the Triumphant Church. No human being, not even the popes can determine who is excluded from there. Proven by miracles and approving the miracles the popes has the right to determine who is there, but no human power can determine who is not there.
So Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, but this dogma do not make any human being judge over the souls.
However: Now the Church has three territories: the Triumphant Church, the Suffering Church and the Militant Church. Ultimately there will be just one everlasting Church, the Triumphant Church, and everyone who does not belong to the Triumphant Church is damned, he is in the Hell.
This is strict and never contested dogma of the Church.
Those who are in the Triumphant Church see face to face the Trinity, they see our Lord Jesus Christ in His full divinity and full humanity, they see His beautiful institution the Church in all the glory of the hierarchy; they see the effect of the Sacraments, so the faith is replaced by certitude, and their will is lead by the plenitude of God.
It belongs to Jesus Christ and only to Him, who will be member of the Triumphant Church. No human being, not even the popes can determine who is excluded from there. Proven by miracles and approving the miracles the popes has the right to determine who is there, but no human power can determine who is not there.
So Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, but this dogma do not make any human being judge over the souls.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
This is a good explanation, and one I had not thought of before. I think many people here (myself included) sometimes fail to see beyond the Church Militant
A
AnneElliot
Guest
(I have read Card. Avery Dulles’ work regarding the Church…) but why should I read a theologian’s work, when I can read what the Magisterium says herself? Isn’t this a discussion about what the Church dogmatically teaches?
Irregardless, the question I asked what not about the nature of the Church, but about your interpretation of the Council of Trent. If you separate Baptism and the desire for it, then you are effectively separating water and the Holy Spirit. You can leave out “as it is written”. We cannot separate water and the Holy Spirit (it’s Sacred Scripture!), therefore we cannot separate Baptism from the desire for it.
If a man truly desires Baptism and cooperates with the graces God gives him, God in His Divine Providence will see to it that Baptism is provided.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Sure. Divine Providence must act in a way which conforms with your finite mind. Don’t be ridiculous. God is not bound by the Sacraments. The reason I ask, is that you seem to espouse the Institutional, rather than the Sacramental, model of the Church.
A
At_Trent
Guest
I think you are sincere in your efforts, but frankly, I’m not sure where you stand either.I really don’t understand what you are talking about
Are you saying it’s ok to be a Feeneyite ?
A
AnneElliot
Guest
God has revealed certain truths to His Church, which are explicitly taught to the Faithful by the Magisterium. I say that God will act in accordance with what He has revealed. God is reliable. He is immutable. I’m not being ridiculous, I’m being honest and sticking to what the Church herself has taught and continues to teach.
It is your contention that God would act in a manner outside of what He has revealed to His Church.
*COULD *God act in a different manner? Of course. But such has not been revealed. I will stick to Revelation, and if you wish, you can embrace theological theories… but you need to call them what they are-- *theories *.
A
At_Trent
Guest
Br.JR, thanks for explaining it. There is no way to tell if one is playing possum or not, and that is for God to know, not us. So by your reasoning, we must pray for the one who does not embrace the Good News and give them the benefit of the doubt.Ignorance is not the absence of information. Ignorance is the inability to grasp the message. There are those who do not subscribe to the message of the Gospel because it’s inconvenient and there are those who do not subscribe to it, because they can’t grasp. To put it on modern English, they can’t wrap their head around it. I used teach theology and sometimes I’ll have a student who’ll say, “I hear you, but I just don’t get it,” or “I understand what you’re saying, but it does not make sense.” They are struggling with the truth being presented. They are not rejecting it out of malice, but out of an honest inability to appreciate it. The inability to grasp something may be invincible, because there are so many other obstacles in the person’s thinking.
Our ancestors did not know about this, because they had no knowledge of how human cognition works. To them, this looked like stubbornness. Today, we’re beginning to understand cognitive processes. We still don’t have all the facts. We apply the same principle to those who say that they know better than the popes what EENS means. They’re not being obstinate. They are simply unable to cognitively grasp what the current popes are saying and how it connects to what was said in the past. However, they are being very honest in their effort to try to understand. Even those who walk away, do so out of frustration, not stubbornness.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
But just as I can’t judge them, I can’t state that they can be saved either. Nor state they might be. I can only pray they save themselves.
If one can’t understand, or grasp, the fact that God can become man, reveal His New Covenant, and then ascend to Heaven, that is understandable. I don’t see how it is possible by logic, but I truly believe it by faith. I fear God’s wrath if I ignore it. I’ve had prayers answered : things granted that logically seemed impossible.
God will save who He wants. But when I hear and read There Is No Salvation Outside The Church, and that statement is not followed by the words “but” of “except” and proceed to move outside of BoD, then I have to take pause at stating anyone outside the Church can or might be saved.
I think when we move to invincible ignorance, it’s time to accept it’s possible one can be ignorant in that regard and go no further, other than pray for them.
Hopefully, I haven’t contradicted myself.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Has anyone considered the fact that all who are saved are part of the Church Triumphant? Truly, there is no salvation outside the Church, because all who are saved are in the Church by definition. Now as far as likelihood to being in the Church Triumphant without passing first through the Church Militant and Church Suffering, is that anyone’s decision but God’s?
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear St.TommyMore,
Cordial greetings.
That the Second Vatican Council changed nothing is, I think, a moot point. At Vatican II a new and much broader religious definition of the Church began to emerge and make its presence felt - one in which God’s presence is not to be found exclusively contained within the bosom of the Church. Thus, in this new religious milieu the traditional teaching, for example Cantate Domino, which unequivocally circumscribed the limits within which God and salvation could be found, presented a problem to the Vatican II theologians, who were undeniably men of universal vision, or should say universalist vision.
The big question facing the progressive thinkers, men such as Karl Rahner (an official advisor to the Council), was precisely how can the new emerging theology endorse at the same time the tradtional view of the Church (noted for its exclusiveness), and the new vision with its new view of man (noted for its inclusiveness)?
The new progressive theologians were confident that a harmonization between the two opposing, and seemingly irreconcilible, positions could be found, not by legitimate development but by a radical *re-interpretation * of the old in terms of the new outlook. In this way, elements of the traditional doctrine (which many now found unpalatable, if not downright uncharitable) could be retained though their real substance was transformed and adapted to meet the new liberal thinking. It is surely rather naive to assume that men like Rahner had no influence upon the Councils decision. That they did so is manifestly obvious to all but the blind and wholly distracted.
The old traditional Catholicism was formulated by men who were thoroughly and unreservedly convinced that God’s truth could be known infallibly; truth was always truth, error was always error and the distinction between the twain was never blurred. Consequently, there was, and still is, for traditional Catholics an unbridgeable chasm between Christ and the Devil, light and darkness, Catholic and non-Catholic religion. This may be regarded by some as a rather facile oversimplification of the situation; on the contrary, it is being loyal to the consistent teaching of the Church throughout its magnificent history, rather than capitulating to the sentimental and wishy-washy liberalism, which can see no man condemned to eternal Hell and likes to imagine that everyone, including even atheists, are actually “anonymous Christians”.
Vatican II decidedly did change the Church, and not for the better I feel. The multiple threads on this topic are an evidence that something is seriously amiss and that good Catholics are confused.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
C
chypmonk
Guest
Sure it WOULD be sufficient if you were pope and there were NOT all those DOGMATIC statements that say the opposite. As Anne said above, maybe you have missed this infallible statement, which I have posted several times, but many on this thread seem to want to just ignore it:
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**…”[Denzinger 468 link]
We are not saved by [natural law] good works (that would be semi-Pelagianism) but by the Grace of being incorporated into the Chosen People (Old Testament) or Mystical Body of Christ (New Testament).
By being incorporated into Christ, we are joined to the Chosen People:
St. Paul, Romans 11:17:
"If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root,"
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+11&version=NIV
Baptism given to us by Christ allows us to be grafted into the Chosen People of God (the olive root) of the Old Testament.
The new testament is expansive and seeks converts. The old testament was closed and did not look for converts. It sought on average to be closed and exclusive. We only have knowledge of old testament saints being saved. People think Budda and Socrotese were “holy men” according to the world but they were never joined to the Chosen People thus died in their sins and were not saved.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains that unbelievers who have never heard of the Gospel are damned for sins, which cannot be remitted without Faith, not because of the sin of infidelity.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 10., A. 1:
“If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief.”
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm#article1
Vatican II in the “Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity” is very clear on this point too:
Pope Paul VI, Second Vatican Council, Ad Gentes:
“So although in ways known to Himself God can lead those, who through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please Him” (Ad Gentes, 1,7 link).
Which means that although an invincible ignorant person can be reached in extraordinary ways known only to God, so to bring them to Faith, and entrance to the Church thru the Sacrament of Baptism,because one is not a member of the Church without the Sacrament of Baptism and there is no remission of sins outside the Church.
C
chypmonk
Guest
Could you quote me how you are confused on my position?
Being a Feeneyite is fine with the Church and with me too.
- Status