Salvation outside the Church

[RosaryCrusader]

I believe that you may be on a slippery slope here. The so-called butchering as you call it was done by popes, not by some Johnny Come Lately. These are men who are well aware of their theology, Tradition and the history of these teachings. They know exactly what theu can restate explain, clarify and interpret and what they cannot.

Do not put yourself in the dangerous position of appearing as if you know more than the popes, espeically popes who have been known for their knowledge of theology, history and their fidelity to the Church.

The minute you get into the position “me vs the pope” you’re in trouble.

Unless a pope says something that is heresy, what he teaches is part of the Ordinary Magisterium and requires assent and an honest effort to undertand what he’s saying. Don’t ever assume that these men do not know what they’re talking about. That’s a dangerous assumption. Avoid presenting an opinion to others that would suggest that the popes are wrong in their proposals and comments on the matter. When you do that, you create a situation that is antagonistic between you and the pope and you’re leading others into the same position.

As St. Francis always taught his brothers, “Teach what the pope teaches, even when you believe that you know better. Such obedience is pleasing to God and man.” We must lead people to Peter, not away from him. Creating suspicion is not helpful.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br JR,

When I speak of people butchering the dogma it isn’t in reference to the Pope and the Bishops - unless they have been shown to say otherwise. I believe V2 can be interpreted in light of tradition which leaves us with the dogma intact. The problem is with the understanding of people in the pews, a lot of Priests, and even Hierarchy who have ran with unrestrained liberalism in reinventing the Church since V2. My butchering comment was addressed mostly to people here on this board, yourself included, who butcher not only the dogma itself but also what Vatican II stated on it - going well beyond what is stated into the realm of extrapolation.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR,

When I speak of people butchering the dogma it isn’t in reference to the Pope and the Bishops - unless they have been shown to say otherwise. I believe V2 can be interpreted in light of tradition which leaves us with the dogma intact. The problem is with the understanding of people in the pews, a lot of Priests, and even Hierarchy who have ran with unrestrained liberalism in reinventing the Church since V2. My butchering comment was addressed mostly to people here on this board, yourself included, who butcher not only the dogma itself but also what Vatican II stated on it - going well beyond what is stated into the realm of extrapolation.

Have you read “Ut Unum Sint” by Pope John Paul II? That’s what I was using. You’ll have to prove that Pope John Paul was butchering the doctrine.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Please stick to the subject. If you have nothing new to add, then move along; but don’t post the same citations repeatedly. Remember TC Forum policy. Speak to each other respectfully, especially to clergy and religious.

Thank You

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[Sirach2]

RosaryCrusader,

Your example of inserting the ExCathedra proclamation of the Immaculate Conception into the concept of EENS is utterly irrational and not even in the ball park. The only two ExCathedra statements were the Assumption, and the Immaculate Conception, both of which are solemnly celebrated as Holy Days of Obligation. Our Lady herself appeared to St. Bernadette announcing the title. Do you believe EENS should be on a par with these? Apparently so.

What you fail to consider is that the Popes are lawfully permitted to undertake development of doctrine; whereas, these two solemn feasts do not fall into that category, and never will. Interestingly, Chypmonk felt confident he was right when he posted this tenet from the First Vatican Council:
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding” [36]
It just proves that people pull these papal citations out of context from other bloggers or their own research, yet have no clue about the background or how the Church understands it. Since it justifies their position, they rest rather self-assuredly in proclaiming it according to their peripheral reading of it.

Note well that the footnote #36 was taken from Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium (Notebook), 28 (PL 50, 668). He did make that statement, but the Church understood the accompanying background as Vincent wrote it, advocating the development of doctrine. In the chapter cited, he used the analogy of growth of a person, much in the same manner as did Blessed John Newman, who used an analogy of the growth of a tree. And Jesus also used an analogy, “first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear.”

Chypmonk stated elsewhere that he rejects the Church’s beatification of this holy man, and opposes his writings on the development of doctrine. Why do you suppose Chypmonk opposes Bl. John Newman’s writings? If he accepts the Church’s authorization of doctrinal development, that shoots down his entire premise that keeps his particular views etched in stone, denying the leading of the Holy Spirit into fullness of truth, as Jesus promised would occur.

Although you have alleged that I only adhere to the V-II documents, I have presented pre-Vatican II teaching from Pope Pius IX, and am prepared to cite others to show that the Church has held the belief in BOD and BOB for many centuries, both of which allow justification for eternal life. In addition, I have shown the examples of Christ Jesus, Himself, and the writings of St. Paul ---- ALL of which are ignored, set aside, and contradicted using the same repetitious understanding of Unam Sanctam. This latest effort to equate EENS with the dogma of I.C. is just about the most banal I have come across in these discussions.

Finally,
By some flaw in our modern sensibilities, some would prefer to frame this entire question exclusively in terms of “salvation” as if salvation is the primary focus of religion. Ever since Lutheranism was founded by a man who was neurotic about his own salvation, a sort of skewing of religious reality has to some degree infected many Christians. In reality, the primary focus of all true religion is to give glory to God. We do this first and foremost by responding to His invitation to draw into the closest possible union with Him. It is precisely this union which gives Him glory. And it is precisely into the Church that God has poured all the means of union.

The Church, then, is not ultimately about protecting our right to superior pay as workers who have labored all day in the scorching heat, or our role as self-satisfied sons while we watch the despised prodigals squander their inheritance… The Church is about glorifying God by helping as many souls as possible to draw into the closest possible union with Him. All the means of union form the very constitution of the Catholic Church. The desire to share the great gift of the Church, then, becomes the most powerful impetus for good example, witness, preaching, evangelization, catechesis, apologetics, missionary work, and every form of charity. In all this there can be no lack of motive for the Catholic. Sharing the Church is simply at the core of what it means to be in love with God.

How many would be attracted to the Church if they hear people spout the cliché “Join or you will be damned!” Those who are gifted with the Holy Spirit’s charism of discernment can spot easily the condemnation in these types of threads, of those who wear the sheep’s robe, yet act as “accuser of the brethren.” [Revelations 12:10]

 

[RosaryCrusader]

RosaryCrusader,

Your example of inserting the ExCathedra proclamation of the Immaculate Conception into the concept of EENS is utterly irrational and not even in the ball park. The only two ExCathedra statements were the Assumption, and the Immaculate Conception, both of which are solemnly celebrated as Holy Days of Obligation.

Sirach,

Again, and as usual, your posts are so riddled with error they’re usually not worth responding to. I ignored your first comment, which was to someone else, concerning there only being two ex cathedra statements ever made. But I can’t let you go on repeating a lie so I thought I would address it.

There are many Church pronouncements besides the two Marian dogmas which are infallible. EENS is one of them - it is a dogmatic teaching. It is de fide and you can’t reject it w/o putting yourself outside the Church and your soul in eternal jeopardy. Because there are some people here who look only to EWTN and Catholic Answers as “authoritative” sources I will use one to show you you’re wrong. Jimmy Akin: jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html

It is certainly true that papal infallibility is widely misunderstood, but I regret to say that this statement falls into a common misunderstanding of it: namely, the idea that it has only been exercised twice. This claim is commonly made by dissident Catholics

who wish to minimize the practical impact of the doctrine of papal infallibility, and the claim has been so commonly made that even many orthodox Catholics have absorbed it and repeat it in good conscience.

But it isn’t true.

**Papal infallibility has been exercised far more than two times. **In fact, it had been used many times prior to 1870, when it was defined by the First Vatican Council. This was the clear understanding of the council, as shown–for example–by reading the later Archbishop Gasser’s relatio to the council fathers. This was a briefing given to the bishops at Vatican I to ensure a common understanding of the proposals regarding papal infallibility they were voting on. It is reprinted in the excellent book The Gift of Infallibility (which is the best book on the subject), and in the course of the relatio, Gasser alludes to the numerous times papal infallibility had been used before the Council.

You can read the rest at the link above. The last instance of a Pope using his authority to make an ex cathedra statement (as far as I can recall) was with Pope John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which forbade women priestesses.

Our Lady herself appeared to St. Bernadette announcing the title. Do you believe EENS should be on a par with these? Apparently so.

I most absolutely, and solemnly, DO, by virtue of the fact that they’re both dogmas of the faith which cannot be rejected w/o ceasing to be Catholic. I do not reject any of the Dogmas of the Faith. If you decide to reject Church dogma - that is your folly.

Although you have alleged that I only adhere to the V-II documents,

No I didn’t - I said “mostly”.

I have presented pre-Vatican II teaching from Pope Pius IX, and am prepared to cite others to show that the Church has held the belief in BOD and BOB for many centuries, both of which allow justification for eternal life.

Thanks, but I’m not the one denying BOD and BOB. That would be Chypmonk.

In addition, I have shown the examples of Christ Jesus, Himself, and the writings of St. Paul ---- ALL of which are ignored, set aside, and contradicted using the same repetitious understanding of Unam Sanctam. This latest effort to equate EENS with the dogma of I.C. is just about the most banal I have come across in these discussions.

Liberals have no sense of humor - nor do they understand that satire and even ridicule are sometimes appropriate in debating things to show the absurdity of their arguments.

How many would be attracted to the Church if they hear people spout the cliché “Join or you will be damned!” Those who are gifted with the Holy Spirit’s charism of discernment can spot easily the condemnation in these types of threads, of those who wear the sheep’s robe, yet act as “accuser of the brethren.” [Revelations 12:10]

Who has ever said ‘join or you will be damned’? This is a discussion amongst Catholics not door to door evangelism. Christ alone is judge - that is the end result of these threads.

Outside the Church there is no salvation - Christ established the Church as necessary (Vatican 2) - people must be joined to it in some way before death (Council of Florence). Natural law does not justify, invincible ignorance neither saves nor damns - it excuses from sin against the 1st commandment, desire to enter the Church can justify and merit the graces of Baptism, without the sacrament but as the 1949 Letter from the Holy Office states, "But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). "

That’s it in a nutshell.

 

[JM3]

As for Pope Boniface referring to only those in the Church the full quote will reveal that he was talking about all those outside her will perish thus in the same breath equating forgiveness of sins with necessity of Church membership:

“Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,’ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that,** outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.”**papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

**The final line **I think points out that he was teaching that all outside the Church will perish like the human’s did outside of the Ark and the only survivors will be Noah and his family.

An observation and a question.

The final line in Pope Boniface’s Apostolic Letter(which is what a bull is) is this, “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”, which is the main purpose of the letter. To take parts of the letter out of context of why it was written and for whom it was written does not help you.

My question:

Do you accept the entire Dogmatic Constitution of the Church LUMEN GENTIUM as
Solemnly Promulgated by his Holiness Pope Paul VI or do you place yourself outside of the Church by your failure to ‘be subject to the Roman Pontiff’?

 

[Sirach2]

Again, and as usual, your posts are so riddled with error they’re usually not worth responding to. I ignored your first comment, which was to someone else, concerning there only being two ex cathedra statements ever made. But I can’t let you go on repeating a lie so I thought I would address it.

There are many Church pronouncements besides the two Marian dogmas which are infallible.

Good heavens, you have a penchant for “twist and spin!” When did I ever claim these are the only two infallilble documents? You have seen many of my posts defending the infallibility of the Popes and the requirement of submission to him, EVEN WHEN they are not proclaimed infallibly. Do a search on my profile.

What I am excepting here, is that an ExCathedra proclamation is one that the pope makes on his own authority, as with these two decrees. Other statements of infallibility are generally made in conciliar documents. Do you pick and choose that you will obey only the ones that suit your fancy and not the others? It is clear that you do. I have never disagreed that EENS was an infallible teaching, but I believe it must be understood in light of how the Church understands and presently teaches it, i.e., with the authority of doctrinal development. That is where we part. Your version versus the Magisterium.

Think again, that this doctrine was formulated prior to the discovery of the new world, and prior to the Reformation. To lock the Magisterium into a “forever” mode of understanding, when these new developments cause it to rethink its position, is just plain arbitrariness and unwillingness to yield submission, placing yourself outside the Church.

As for humor, that was a rather sick form of it. Even JR understood that you were serious. Well, it seems we must separate again, for we will never see eye to eye on this issue.

 

[JReducation]

RosaryCrusader,

Your example of inserting the ExCathedra proclamation of the Immaculate Conception into the concept of EENS is utterly irrational and not even in the ball park. The only two ExCathedra statements were the Assumption, and the Immaculate Conception, both of which are solemnly celebrated as Holy Days of Obligation. Our Lady herself appeared to St. Bernadette announcing the title. Do you believe EENS should be on a par with these? Apparently so.

Although you have alleged that I only adhere to the V-II documents, I have presented pre-Vatican II teaching from Pope Pius IX, and am prepared to cite others to show that the Church has held the belief in BOD and BOB for many centuries, both of which allow justification for eternal life. In addition, I have shown the examples of Christ Jesus, Himself, and the writings of St. Paul ---- ALL of which are ignored, set aside, and contradicted using the same repetitious understanding of Unam Sanctam. This latest effort to equate EENS with the dogma of I.C. is just about the most banal I have come across in these discussions.

It is true that people are citing these statements out of context. However, Ex Cathedra and infallible are not the same thing. Infallible is any statement made by the Church that is frree of error and must be believed. It does not have to be declared Ex Cathedra.

The two Marian Doctrines were declared Ex Cathedra, but not because of any miracle by the Virgin Mary. They were part of the Tradition of the Church. By the way, they are not Holy Days of Obligation in the Universal Church, only in the USA and a few other countries. They are universal solemnities. Is that what you meant?

The proble with the EENS is that Popes Pius XII, Vatican II, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI have tried to explain how they work and some people do not want to hear what they have to say or want to challenge what they have to say.

We really have to think as Jesus thought. Jesus does not usurp his Church. If the pope teaches on an existing doctrine, suchas the EENS, and he says that he wants to clarify how it works, he’s not chaging the doctrine. He’s adding to our understanding. In this case, what the popes have done since Pius XIII to this day is clarify for us what is meant by the Church and what the Church can do for those who are not within her physicial boundaries. Salvation coming through the Catholic Church is not in question. What is being clarified is how the Church uses her power and how Christ uses the Church to reach those who are physically outside the physical Church.

We have to be careful to read the document for what they are. They are talking about the extent of the Church’s reach, not about changing the doctrine itself.

The problem is that the doctrine was framed in language that did not explain the scope and sequence of the Church. The language limited itself to the doctrine. Today, the Church is focusing on her power to reach out to and offer salvation to many outside her boundaries. This was never discussed before.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sirach2]

Thanks for your reply, JR. I see that we were both posting at the same time, and I already explained my understanding of ExCathedra, which seems to be in line with what you presented.

I have noticed that Chypmonk does not understand the difference, for everytime he posts a citation, he claims it is Ex Cathedra. These documents were never proclaimed “from the Chair,” even though they were infallibly promulgated. That could be the root of his misunderstanding herein, since he reads these from a blog where the authors use that phrase, and he thinks they all carry the weight of an Ex Cathedra teaching.

And yes, I realize these feasts are solemnities, for I also recite the LOTH, but I did not know they were not holy days outside of the USA. Thanks!

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for your reply, JR. I see that we were both posting at the same time, and I already explained my understanding of ExCathedra, which seems to be in line with what you presented.

And yes, I realize these feasts are solemnities, for I also recite the LOTH, but I did not know they were not holy days outside of the USA. Thanks!

They are holy days, but they are not days of obligation for the universal Church. There are some holy days of obligation for the universal Church, such as Christmass and January 1. Then there are others that are by Conferences, by dioceses, by religious orders and even by Churches. The Oriental Churches have more Holy Days of Obligation than does the Roman Church. That’s because they are smaller. An entire Church can be one conference. That’s not the case of the Roman Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JM3]

Outside the Church there is no salvation - Christ established the Church as necessary (Vatican 2) - people must be joined to it in some way before death (Council of Florence). Natural law does not justify, invincible ignorance neither saves nor damns - it excuses from sin against the 1st commandment, desire to enter the Church can justify and merit the graces of Baptism, without the sacrament but as the 1949 Letter from the Holy Office states, "But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). "

That’s it in a nutshell.

Perhaps you didn’t read the entire 1949 document. It also says this:

the Sacred Congregation has reached the certitude that this unfortunate question was raised because the principle “outside the Church no salvation” has not been well understood or examined and the controversy has become envenomed as a result of a serious lack of discipline on the part of certain members of the aforementioned associations, who have refused to give respect and obedience to the legitimate authorities.
&
This dogma, however, has to be understood in the sense attributed to it by the Church herself. The Saviour, in fact, entrusted explanation of those things contained in the deposit of faith, not to private judgment, but to the teaching of the ecclesiastical authority.
&
In his infinite mercy, God willed that, since it was a matter of the means of salvation ordained for man’s ultimate end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, its salutary effects could also be obtained in certain circumstances when these means are only objects of “desire” or of “hope”. This point was clearly established at the Council of Trent, with regard to both the sacrament of baptism and of penance (Denziger, n. 797 and 807).
&
These things are clearly expressed in the dogmatic letter published by the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII 29 June 1943 “on the mystical Body of Jesus Christ” (A.A.S., vol. XXXV, 1943, p. 193 and sq.). In this Letter, the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are presently incorporated into the Church as members and those who are united with her through desire only.

Speaking of the members who form here below the mystical Body, the same august Pontiff said: Only those are members of the Church who have received the Baptism of regeneration and profess the true faith and who are not, to their misfortune, separated from the Body as a whole or cut off from her through very grave faults by the legitimate authority.

Towards the end of the same Encyclical, he affectionately invites those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church to enter into her unity, and he mentions those who “by a certain desire and unconscious longing have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer”. He does not in any way exclude them from eternal salvation, but he goes on to affirm that they are in a state “in which they cannot be sure of their eternal salvation” and that “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church”.

With these words, **the Pope condemns those who exclude from eternal salvation men who are united to the Church only through implicit desire as well as those who wrongly affirm that all men can be saved equally in all religions **(cf. Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, Denz. 1641 and sq.; Pius XI, Quanto conficiamur moerore, Denz. 1677).

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Perhaps you didn’t read the entire 1949 document. It also says this:

the Sacred Congregation has reached the certitude that this unfortunate question was raised because the principle “outside the Church no salvation” has not been well understood or examined and the controversy has become envenomed as a result of a serious lack of discipline on the part of certain members of the aforementioned associations, who have refused to give respect and obedience to the legitimate authorities.
&
This dogma, however, has to be understood in the sense attributed to it by the Church herself. The Saviour, in fact, entrusted explanation of those things contained in the deposit of faith, not to private judgment, but to the teaching of the ecclesiastical authority.
&
In his infinite mercy, God willed that, since it was a matter of the means of salvation ordained for man’s ultimate end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, its salutary effects could also be obtained in certain circumstances when these means are only objects of “desire” or of “hope”. This point was clearly established at the Council of Trent, with regard to both the sacrament of baptism and of penance (Denziger, n. 797 and 807).
&
These things are clearly expressed in the dogmatic letter published by the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII 29 June 1943 “on the mystical Body of Jesus Christ” (A.A.S., vol. XXXV, 1943, p. 193 and sq.). In this Letter, the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are presently incorporated into the Church as members and those who are united with her through desire only.

Speaking of the members who form here below the mystical Body, the same august Pontiff said: Only those are members of the Church who have received the Baptism of regeneration and profess the true faith and who are not, to their misfortune, separated from the Body as a whole or cut off from her through very grave faults by the legitimate authority.

Towards the end of the same Encyclical, he affectionately invites those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church to enter into her unity, and he mentions those who “by a certain desire and unconscious longing have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer”. He does not in any way exclude them from eternal salvation, but he goes on to affirm that they are in a state “in which they cannot be sure of their eternal salvation” and that “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church”.

With these words, **the Pope condemns those who exclude from eternal salvation men who are united to the Church only through implicit desire as well as those who wrongly affirm that all men can be saved equally in all religions **(cf. Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, Denz. 1641 and sq.; Pius XI, Quanto conficiamur moerore, Denz. 1677).

No, I’m familiar with the whole document. Liberals like to quote up to the last part which is why I emphasized the last part that puts the whole document into it’s proper perspective. You’re trying to cut the document in half and keep the former and not the latter. The latter explains the former as it explicitly clarifies what type of desire is being discussed and what is not.

 

[JoeytheItalian]

We are all supposed to love god #1, love each other #2…

We have been taught as Catholics that we are not to judge others, because in judging we leave ourselves open to god’s judgment…there are over 30 pages of postings here, and a lot of posters are telling others who can or cannot be saved, by what criteria someone can be saved, what doctrine is correct in terms of going to heaven and being saved, etc… THIS IS NOT FOR US TO DECIDE.

That is for GOD to decide. YWH. Father of heaven and earth. Our creator.

Who are we as humans to say who is saved and who is not? sorry. that is plain ignorance.

 

[JReducation]

Perhaps you didn’t read the entire 1949 document. It also says this:

the Sacred Congregation has reached the certitude that this unfortunate question was raised because the principle “outside the Church no salvation” has not been well understood or examined and the controversy has become envenomed as a result of a serious lack of discipline on the part of certain members of the aforementioned associations, who have refused to give respect and obedience to the legitimate authorities.
&
This dogma, however, has to be understood in the sense attributed to it by the Church herself. The Saviour, in fact, entrusted explanation of those things contained in the deposit of faith, not to private judgment, but to the teaching of the ecclesiastical authority.
&
In his infinite mercy, God willed that, since it was a matter of the means of salvation ordained for man’s ultimate end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, its salutary effects could also be obtained in certain circumstances when these means are only objects of “desire” or of “hope”. This point was clearly established at the Council of Trent, with regard to both the sacrament of baptism and of penance (Denziger, n. 797 and 807).
&
These things are clearly expressed in the dogmatic letter published by the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII 29 June 1943 “on the mystical Body of Jesus Christ” (A.A.S., vol. XXXV, 1943, p. 193 and sq.). In this Letter, the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are presently incorporated into the Church as members and those who are united with her through desire only.

Speaking of the members who form here below the mystical Body, the same august Pontiff said: Only those are members of the Church who have received the Baptism of regeneration and profess the true faith and who are not, to their misfortune, separated from the Body as a whole or cut off from her through very grave faults by the legitimate authority.

Towards the end of the same Encyclical, he affectionately invites those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church to enter into her unity, and he mentions those who “by a certain desire and unconscious longing have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer”. He does not in any way exclude them from eternal salvation, but he goes on to affirm that they are in a state “in which they cannot be sure of their eternal salvation” and that “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church”.

With these words, **the Pope condemns those who exclude from eternal salvation men who are united to the Church only through implicit desire as well as those who wrongly affirm that all men can be saved equally in all religions **(cf. Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, Denz. 1641 and sq.; Pius XI, Quanto conficiamur moerore, Denz. 1677).

This is an excellent summary. This is one of the many documents to which I have been referring and was accussed of hatcheting or some such thing. Vatican II tried to clarify the teaching. Pope John Paul II tried. Lately, Pope Benedict XVI has tried.

The Church is not out to damn people to hell. She wants to save souls. She tries to extend her saving power as far as possible. Jesus is a merciful God. He is concerned with those who are knowingly in a constant state of sin. He uses whatever means are available to them to obtain forgiveness, if they make use of these means. They may be imperfect means, but that’s all these folks have. Therefore, Jesus uses that little bit of truth. He has promised heaven to those who seek him, even those who may be looking in the wrong place. This does not make other faiths equal to the Catholic faith. That’s not what is being said. What is being said is that man is on a journey and those who are walking on the path that leads to the Church, should they die before they reach their final destination will not be abandoned by God. We must trust God’s mercy and trust the Church’s judgment on these matters.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JM3]

No, I’m familiar with the whole document. Liberals like to quote up to the last part which is why I emphasized the last part that puts the whole document into it’s proper perspective. You’re trying to cut the document in half and keep the former and not the latter. The latter explains the former as it explicitly clarifies what type of desire is being discussed and what is not.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=480821&page=54

This is a previous thread on the same topic. You will see that, on posts 802 & 803, I posted the WHOLE document.

So, here is the rest of it for you.

However, it should not be thought that any sort of desire to enter the Church is sufficient for salvation. The desire whereby a person adheres to the Church must be animated by perfect charity. Nor can such an implicit desire produce its effect if it is not animated by supernatural faith, for anyone who comes to God must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him. (Heb XI, 6). The Council of Trent declares (session VI. ch. VIII): Faith is the principle of man’s salvation, the foundation and the root of all justification. Without it, it is impossible to please God and to be counted among his children. (Denz., 801)

**It is clear, from what is stated above, that the ideas proposed by the periodical From the Housetops (n.3) as the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, are far from being so and are very dangerous not only for those in the Church but also for those who live outside her. **

**Certain conclusions follow from this doctrinal explanation concerning discipline and conduct, which cannot be ignored by those who vigorously defend the need of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops whom the Holy Spirit has made guardians to govern the Church (Acts XX, 28). **

That is why it is inexplicable that the St. Benedict Center should claim to be a Catholic group and desire to be considered as such whilst not conforming to the prescripts of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law and continuing to be a cause of discord and of rebellion against the ecclesiastical authority and of disturbance for many consciences.

Furthermore, it is difficult to understand that a member of a religious institute, Fr. Feeney, should present himself as a “defender of the faith” and at the same time not hesitate to attack the teaching given by the legitimate authorities and not even fear to incur the grave sanctions with which he is threatened by the sacred canons for gravely violating his religious duties as a priest and simple member of the Church.

Finally, it is not prudent to tolerate certain Catholics claiming for themselves the right to publish a periodical, with the intention of expounding theological doctrines, without the permission of the competent authority, called the imprimatur as prescribed by the sacred canons.

Those therefore who expose themselves to the grave danger of opposing the Church must seriously reflect that once “Rome has spoken”, they cannot carry on regardless, even for reasons of good faith. Their bond with the Church and their duty of obedience are certainly stricter than for those who adhere to her “only through an unconscious desire”. Let them understand, therefore, that they are children of the Church, affectionately sustained by her with the milk of doctrine and sacraments, and that, after having heard the voice of their Mother, they cannot then be excused of culpable ignorance.** Let them understand that to them the following principle applies without restriction: Submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is necessary for salvation. **
In addressing him this present letter, I express to Your Excellency my profound regards of esteem and devotion.

F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani,
A. Ottaviani, assessor.

 

[JM3]

The Church is not out to damn people to hell. She wants to save souls. She tries to extend her saving power as far as possible. Jesus is a merciful God. He is concerned with those who are knowingly in a constant state of sin. He uses whatever means are available to them to obtain forgiveness, if they make use of these means. They may be imperfect means, but that’s all these folks have. Therefore, Jesus uses that little bit of truth. He has promised heaven to those who seek him, even those who may be looking in the wrong place. This does not make other faiths equal to the Catholic faith. That’s not what is being said. What is being said is that man is on a journey and those who are walking on the path that leads to the Church, should they die before they reach their final destination will not be abandoned by God. We must trust God’s mercy and trust the Church’s judgment on these matters.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Here is the question for those who vehemently oppose the strict interpretation of EENS and the Feeneyites:

Do you accept the four regularized groups of the Saint Benedict Center (Feeneyites) as your fellow Catholic brothers and sisters in full communion with the mystical Body of Christ, in good standing?

 

[JM3]

Here is the question for those who vehemently oppose the strict interpretation of EENS and the Feeneyites:

Do you accept the four regularized groups of the Saint Benedict Center (Feeneyites) as your fellow Catholic brothers and sisters in full communion with the mystical Body of Christ, in good standing?

I accept that the Church has the authority to teach and define the dogmas of the Catholic faith.
I accept what the Pope teaches, as the head of the Church.

Will you answer my question to chypmonk?

Do you accept the entire Dogmatic Constitution of the Church LUMEN GENTIUM as
Solemnly Promulgated by his Holiness Pope Paul VI or do you place yourself outside of the Church by your failure to ‘be subject to the Roman Pontiff’?

 

[Pitcharan]

Pitcharan (and others), I’ll urge you to listen to this Catholic Priest on audiosancto lay things down the way they are. His sermon is probably the most balanced I’ve heard on the subject and I would urge you to take a listen to it: audiosancto.org/sermon/20091115-Salvation-is-Only-in-the-Catholic-Church.html

I will gladly listen if it has explicit clearance from the CC as per laid down procedure.

 

[Pitcharan]

…Also, be careful with the way you say things. In trying to defend all the so called exceptions to EENS many refute it entirely as appears to be the case in your reply. …In discussing this topic one must always remember that it is a dogma of the faith that is being discussed, It’s something necessary to be believed to be called Catholic. So it’s of the utmost importance that you never write anything that would imply you reject it outrightly as so many do in these threads (unless, of course, you do reject it). If you wanted to address the post concerning Chypmonk, myself and others “who strongly advocate the strict interpretation of EENS…” that would be more acceptable as then there would be no question as to whether or not you’re rejecting it completely in this statement and we would know that you hold the ‘liberal’ view of the dogma.

Dear RosaryCrusader, neither me nor other like minded posters on this thread suggest rejecting any CC dogma, but are merely debating your interpretation of EENS.

THE CC IS GOD’S OWN MYSTICAL BODY AND AN INSTITUTION FOR SALVATION AND NOT DAMNATION.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. (Jn 3:17) Our Lord Himself said:“As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.” (Jn 12:47-48).

However, He said nothing about those who did not hear His words. So it is obvious, that neither the Lord nor His church ever talked about damnation of those who never heard His words. You are drawing your own meaning of EENS.

The CC merely warns the faithful about "false teachings on salvation other than that preached by the church"