Salvation outside the church

[Citizenfitz]

mgrfin:

The Syllabus is not a defide document. It is from a different time and different place.

Our government gives us the right to have separation of church and state. Most countries have such separation. Even in Italy.

Maybe the Sedevacantists should say Benedict XVI is in a state of heresy, and is now outside the Church, and he is pope no more.

After all, Sedevacantists are self-appointed disciplinarians of the whole church. Wonder what Canon of the Code their power is derived from?

Let’s resurrect Lefebre and make him pope. We need more fascists in our world.

peace

What’s your definition of fascism?

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin:

What’s your definition of fascism?

You know, someone like Mussolini or Franco (both supported by Archbishop Lefebreve). One who has extreme right wing views, aggressive, militaristic, under whom every one toes the mark, or else.

 

[Citizenfitz]

You know, someone like Mussolini or Franco (both supported by Archbishop Lefebreve). One who has extreme right wing views, aggressive, militaristic, under whom every one toes the mark, or else.

You’re right in calling Mussolini and Franco fascists. However, you’re mistaken to think of them as being, “extreme right”. Fascism is socialist.

 

[DustinsDad]

I agree that this was the teaching of the Catholic Church in the past, but the teaching has been changed since Vatican II and the current Catholic teaching is that a Jew may be saved and that Judaism is salvific for the Jews.

**First Vatican Council, **Session 3, Canon 4, Number 3:

If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

 

[jim28]

You didn’t quote your source, so we are all the more confused.

Here’s my source:
Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: “We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”

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

Just because the statement says ‘firmly believes, professes and preaches…’ this is not automatically an ex cathedra statement.

 

[jim28]

Perhaps, what you say is true to some extent, but the teaching has already been changed since Vatican II, so it is a moot point.

Vatican II has no right to change it.
What the Church has declared to be Divinely Revealed, no one, not even another Council (which V II is not another Council), can change it.
It is not moot. It is Dogma!!

Thanks

 

[j1s2a3]

Yes.Please remember the times were in and all the false teachers who will wish they never were born.The anagogy status of these souls are part of Catholic prayer life.The King of Kings our Lord Jesus Christ and ONLY him will have final say.

 

[Citizenfitz]

I agree that this was the teaching of the Catholic Church in the past, but the teaching has been changed since Vatican II and the current Catholic teaching is that a Jew may be saved and that Judaism is salvific for the Jews. Please see “Reflections on Covenant and Mission,” according to which, Walter Cardinal Kasper, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews, is quoted by the document as saying that “the Church believes that Judaism . . . is salvific for [the Jews] because God is faithful to his promises.” …

Then, it seems that Jesus died in vain…

But, perhaps Cardinal Kaspars Masonic credentials are not

 

[TMC]

 

[bobzills]

First Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, Number 3:

If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

This was the teaching before, but this teaching has also been changed. Actually, other doctrines of the Catholic Church were changed even before Vatican II.

 

[DustinsDad]

---

**First Vatican Council, **

***Session 3, Canon 4, Number 3:

If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
This was the teaching before, but this teaching has also been changed. Actually, other doctrines of the Catholic Church were changed even before Vatican II.

What boggles my mind is that you don’t even see the absurdity of what it is you are saying here. I’m sorry, I simply don’t know how to respond to this - except to say that you anathemize yourself by the very claim. Sad.

DustinsDad

 

[Cathlacostal]

Catholic meaning universal. Not Roman Catholic.

That’s the point exactly. Those believing in Christ, cannot truly separate themselves from the Catholic Church. The reformation was men without authority divorcing themselves from the Roman Church. Only the Church has the authority to grant divorce.
Men, even men with Holy Orders speak amiss. It does not mean their office is amiss. The Church is infallible. Holy Orders are infallible but men are always apt to misspeak and usually meaning well when doing so. Let us not confuse the Church with men.
A man asked a question which is written in the Holy Scriptures: "What must I do to be saved? " The answer trumps any comment made by men.

 

[SFD]

This thread is getting bizarre as people tie themselves in knots to avoid the meaning of their words and to change the meaning of others. A few quick responses.
This is simply untrue. Infallibility does not depend on the form of the document. It must be an ex cathedra statement on faith and morals, defining a doctrine of faith and morals that must be held by the whole Church.

I did not say IT DEPENDED on the document. Ex Cathedra pronouncements appear in a wide variety of forms:

SECT. 31 — Papal Judgments and their Infallibility.

I. The Pope, the Father and Teacher of all Christians and the Head of the Universal Church, is the supreme judge in matters of Faith and Morals, and is the regulator and centre of Catholic Unity. His decisions are without appeal and are absolutely binding upon all. …

II. The person in whom the Infallibility is vested is the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra; that is to say, exercising the highest doctrinal authority inherent in the Apostolic See. Whenever the Pope speaks as Supreme Teacher of the Church, he speaks ex cathedra; nor is there any other ex cathedra teaching besides his. The definition therefore leaves no room for the sophistical distinction made by the Gallicans between the See and its occupant (Sedes, Sedens). An ex cathedra judgment is also declared to be supreme and universally binding. Its subject-matter is “doctrine concerning Faith or Morals;“ that is, all and only such points of doctrine as are or may be proposed for the belief of the Faithful. The form of the ex cathedra judgment is the exercise of the Apostolic power with intent to bind all the Faithful in the unity of the Faith.

The nature and extent of the Infallibility of the Pope are also contained in the definition. This Infallibility is the result of a Divine assistance. It differs both from Revelation and Inspiration. It does not involve the manifestation of any new doctrine, or the impulse to write down what God reveals. It supposes, on the contrary, an investigation of revealed truths, and only prevents the Pope from omitting this investigation and from erring in making it. The Divine assistance is not granted to the Pope for his personal benefit, but for the benefit of the Church. Nevertheless, it is granted to him directly as the successor of St. Peter, and not indirectly through the medium of the Church. The extent of the Infallibility of the Pope is determined partly by its subject-matter, partly by the words “possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals.” Moreover, the object of the Infallibility of the Pope and of the Infallibility of the Church being the same, their extent must also coincide.

From the Infallibility of ex cathedra judgments, the council deduces their Irreformability, and further establishes the latter by excluding the consent of the Church as the necessary condition of it. The approbation of the Church is the consequence not the cause of the Irreformability of ex cathedra judgments.

**III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the documents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so. Recommendations, proofs, and explanations accompanying the decision are not necessarily infallible, except where the explanation is itself the dogmatic interpretation of a text of Scripture, or of a rule of Faith, or in as far as it fixes the meaning and extent of the definition. It is not always easy to draw the line between the definition and the other portions of the document. The ordinary rules for interpreting ecclesiastical documents must be applied. The commonest forms of ex cathedra decisions used at the present time are the following:—

1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.
2. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura**, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.
3. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations.
4. Lastly, the Pope can speak ex cathedra by confirming and approving of the decisions of other tribunals, such as general or particular councils, or Roman Congregations. In ordinary cases, however, the approbation of a particular council is merely an act of supervision, and the decision of a Roman Congregation is not ex cathedra unless the Pope makes it his own.

A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben’s “Dogmatik” Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D. With A Preface By Cardinal Manning

Vol. 1. The Sources Of Theological Knowledge, God, Creation And The Supernatural Order Third Edition, Revised, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Lt. New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Benziger Bros. 1906 [Pp. 85-110] CHAPTER V. THE RULE OF FAITH.

SFD

 

[bobzills]

What boggles my mind is that you don’t even see the absurdity of what it is you are saying here. I’m sorry, I simply don’t know how to respond to this - except to say that you anathemize yourself by the very claim. Sad.

DustinsDad

Well, OK. I am not saying I agree or disagree with anything. I am just raising the question which you have not really answered, except to say that by raising these questions, I am anathematised. By the way, I don’t see where you are the one with the authority to decide whether or not a Catholic has been excommunicated or anathematised. Who gave you this authority?Instead of going around cursing me by anathematisation, why don’t you give a simple answer to my questions?
Question 1. Before Vatican II, it was declared here that the teaching was that a Jew would not be saved. After Vatican II, I gave you the quote where it has been declared by the right hand man of Pope Benedict that Judaism is salvific for a Jew. Does this constitute a change in Catholic teaching or not? If it is a change, then who are you saying is anathematised ?
Question 2: The following Councils, approved by the Vatican declared that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and that any change of the creed stating such was subject to the anathematisation. Rome approved the Councils of Constantinople I, Ephesus and Constantinople IV (of 879). All anathematized any change in the Creed which solemly declared that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the last condemned the filioque in particular. Now the teaching has been changed and it is taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

 

[DustinsDad]

Well, OK. I am not saying I agree or disagree with anything. I am just raising the question which you have not really answered, except to say that by raising these questions, I am anathematised. By the way, I don’t see where you are the one with the authority to decide whether or not a Catholic has been excommunicated or anathematised. Who gave you this authority?

I didn’t say “I anathematize you”, I merely pointed out that by rejecting the infallible canon of Vatican I, you would anathmatize yoruself.

Question 1. Before Vatican II, it was declared here that the teaching was that a Jew would not be saved.

A jew could not and cannot be saved outside of Holy Mother Church. There is the theologically possible nuance that a Jew could be inculpably ignorant of Christ’s Church yet be in Her - united to Her Spirit given certain criteria, and thus be saved. This nuance does not violate EENS, and is entirely different than saying Judaism is salvific for the Jews - the latter which is heresy.

After Vatican II, I gave you the quote where it has been declared by the right hand man of Pope Benedict that Judaism is salvific for a Jew. Does this constitute a change in Catholic teaching or not? If it is a change, then who are you saying is anathematised ?

If Kasper believes this as you say it, Kasper anethamatizes himself by rejecting Church teaching.

Question 2: The following Councils, approved by the Vatican declared that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and that any change of the creed stating such was subject to the anathematisation. Rome approved the Councils of Constantinople I, Ephesus and Constantinople IV (of 879). All anathematized any change in the Creed which solemly declared that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the last condemned the filioque in particular. Now the teaching has been changed and it is taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

You’re gonna have to provide quotes to back up your argument in order for me to respond. Nothing defined has been changed so that it contradicts something previously defined.

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

As a follow up to my post above, I invite all to listen to this:

The Principle of Non-Contradiction

Right click and save to your computer if you want - it’s in MP3 format.

DustinsDad

 

[jim28]

I want to know the meaning of this passage of Scripture:

II Corinthians 4:3,4- “3 And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”

 

[catharina]

I want to know the meaning of this passage of Scripture:

II Corinthians 4:3,4- “3 And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”

A bit more of the verses, also from Douay-Rheims:

Paul to the Corinthians II, Chapter 4:

1 Therefore, seeing we have this ministration, according as we have obtained mercy, we faint not; 2 But we renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the word of God; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience, in the sight of God. **3 And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them. 5 For we preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ our Lord; and ourselves your servants through Jesus. **
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Christ Jesus. 7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency may be of the power of God, and not of us. 8 In all things we suffer tribulation, but are not distressed; we are straitened, but are not destitute; 9 We suffer persecution, but are not forsaken; we are cast down, but we perish not: 10 Always bearing about in our body the mortification of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our bodies.

Commentary from a newer translation:

[1-2] A ministry of this sort generates confidence and forthrightness; cf 2 Cor 1:12-14; 2:17.

2 [3-4] Though our gospel is veiled: the final application of the image. Paul has been reproached either for obscurity in his preaching or for his manner of presenting the gospel. But he confidently asserts that there is no veil over his gospel. If some fail to perceive its light, that is because of unbelief. The veil lies over their eyes (2 Cor 3:14), a blindness induced by Satan, and a sign that they are headed for destruction (cf 2 Cor 2:15).

 

[SemperFidelis]

Question 1. Before Vatican II, it was declared here that the teaching was that a Jew would not be saved.

Not at all true. Read the parts of several of Blessed Pius IX’s encyclicals that deal with invincible ignorance. Read Pope Saint Pius X’s Catechism or the Baltimore Catechism that deal with the same things. Read Ven. Pius XII, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguouri, or the Council of Trent on Baptism of Desire. Jews are not and have never been saved as Jews or by the Old Covenant. If they are saved, it’s because they are joined to the soul of the Catholic Church by desire (either implicitly or explicitly) and are hence saved as Catholics.

After Vatican II, I gave you the quote where it has been declared by the right hand man of Pope Benedict that Judaism is salvific for a Jew.

First of all, Kasper is not Pope Benedict XVI’s “right hand man.” Second, how do you know that Cardinal Kasper was not “scolded” for his comments by Pope Benedict in private. Such could certaintly be the case. Third, the document “Relections on Covenant and Mission” was never endorsed by the Bishops and the USCCB and even if it did it still carries no authority or weight. Fourthly, the document was immediately pulled from the USCCB website as it was clearly seen to cause scandal and that it was largely erroneous and heretical. Here’s the not so revolutionary Nostra Aetate on the Old Covenant:

“The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant.” - Nostra Aetate #4, second paragraph

Question 2: The following Councils, approved by the Vatican declared that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and that any change of the creed stating such was subject to the anathematisation.

It is clear that the Creed could be changed by a legitimate authority. In fact it did at the very next Council (Constantinople). The Eastern Orthodox don’t reject that the Creed could be changed by a legitimate authority. They reject that the Pope by himself has the authority to make such a change and that only a Council could in fact do so. The Filioque is orthodox, just read what the Early Church Fathers had to say on the subject. It is not something that was just pulled out of thin air.

and the last condemned the filioque in particular.

Not at all true. The “Council” you are referring to you is in fact not an Ecumenical Council and is not accepted by Rome as such. You are referring to the Photian Council which in effect reversed the decisions of the actual Council of Constantinople IV and occured ten years after the actual Fourth Council of Constantinople.

Now the teaching has been changed and it is taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

Once again, the Dogma is evident once you read the Early Church Fathers. Nothing comes out the blue and the Filioque is not some new innovation like you seem to imply. It is the Apostolic Faith.

 

[Just_a_Thought]

This was the teaching before, but this teaching has also been changed. Actually, other doctrines of the Catholic Church were changed even before Vatican II.

On what basis to you say the teaching was changed? I strongly suggest you read the 1973 CDF document Mysterium Ecclesiae, which actually quotes and reaffirms this very passage from Vatican I.