Salvation outside the church

[SFD]

mgrfin:

You suggest, instead, the Feeny/Fenton/Traditionalist crowd. You can’t find something after 1968?

Mgrfin,

Once again, your ignorance of these issues is manifested.

Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton was the famous OPPONENT of Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center and wrote extensively on these issues in The American Ecclesiastical Review published by Catholic University of America.

mgrfin:

The ‘new’ code, Canon 751, defines heresy as the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.

This would not apply to Protestants? Why?

A protestant child who is validly baptized is a member of the Church…is he not? When he grows up, if he decides to deny a dogma of the Church…why would it impossible that he be considered a heretic?

This is all based on the 1983 CIC, btw.

SFD

 

[inchrist101]

Why dont you Look in the Bible?

.” Salvation is available in Jesus alone (John 14:6; Acts 4:12), and is dependant on God alone for provision, assurance, and security.
"And in none other is there salvation; for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved."
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

check gotquestions.org/what-is-the-church.html

AMEN:thumbsup:

 

[SFD]

GerardP,

Here is Scheeben discussing Tuas Libenter and Prop. 22 condemned in the Syllabus of Errors:
Scheeben:

1. The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth, may be easily gathered from the principles already stated. They are nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich. The following are the criteria of a dogma of Faith:

(a) Creeds or Symbols of Faith generally received;

(b) dogmatic definitions of the Popes or of ecumenical councils, and of particular councils solemnly ratified;

(c) the undoubtedly clear and indisputable sense of Holy Scripture in matters relating to Faith and morals;

(d) the universal and constant teaching of the Apostolate, especially the public and permanent tradition of the Roman Church;

(e) universal practice, especially in liturgical matters, where it clearly supposes and professes a truth as undoubtedly revealed ;

(f) the teaching of the Fathers when manifest and universal;

(g) the teaching of Theologians when manifest and universal.

II. Between the doctrines expressly defined by the Church and those expressly condemned stand what may be called matters of opinion or free opinions. Freedom, however, like certainty, is of various degrees, especially in religious and moral matters. Where there is no distinct definition there may be reasons sufficient to give us moral certainty. To resist these is not, indeed, formal disobedience, but only rashness. Where there are no such reasons this censure is not incurred. It is not possible to determine exactly the boundaries of these two groups of free opinions; they shade off into each other, and range from absolute free do to morally certain obligation to believe. In this sphere of Approximative Theology, as it may be styled, there are:

(1) doctrines which it is morally certain that the Church acknowledges as revealed (veritates fidei proxima);

(2) theological doctrines which it is morally certain that the Church considers as belonging to the integrity of the Faith, or as logically connected with revealed truth, and consequently the denial of which is approximate to theological error (errori theologico proxima);

(3) doctrines neither revealed nor logically deducible from revealed truths, but useful or even necessary for safeguarding Revelation: to deny these would be rash (temerarium).

These three degrees were rejected by the Minimizers mentioned at the end of the last section, and all matters not strictly defined were considered as absolutely free. Pius IX., however, on the occasion of the Munich Congress in 1863, addressed a Brief to the Archbishop of that city laying down the Catholic principles on the subject. The 22nd Proposition condemned in the “Syllabus” was taken from this Brief and runs thus: “The obligation under which Catholic teachers and writers lie is restricted to those matters which are proposed for universal belief as dogmas of Faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.” And the Vatican Council says, at the end of the first constitution, “It sufficeth not to avoid heresy unless those errors which more or less approach thereto are sedulously shunned.”

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]

The above is one refutation of your error. Here is the another authority, Cardinal Manning, refuting you as well:

"This spirit began in Germany. It says: ‘I believe everything which the Church has defined. I believe all dogmas; everything which has been defined by a General Council.’ This sounds a large and generous profession of faith; but they forget that whatsoever was revealed on the Day of Pentecost to the Apostles, and by the Apostles preached to the nations of the world, and has descended in the full stream of universal belief and constant tradition, though it has never been defined, is still matter of Divine faith. Thus there are truths of faith which have never been defined because they have never been contradicted. They are not defined because they have not been denied. The definition of the truth is the fortification of the Church against the assaults of unbelief. Some of the greatest truths of revelation are to this day undefined. The infallibility of the Church has never been defined. The infallibility of the Head of the Church was only defined the other day. But the infallibility of the Church, for which every Catholic would lay down his life, has never been defined until now; the infallibility of the Church is at this moment where the infallibility of the Pope was this time last year; an undefined point of Christian revelation, believed by the Christian world, but not yet put in the form of a definition. When, therefore, men said they would only believe dogmas, and definitions by General Councils, they implied, without knowing it, that they would not believe in the infallibility of the Church. (From, “Four Great Evils of the Day”.)

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

So was I.

Give credence to Vatican 2, and not fall into the ditch with all the heretic Traditionalists.

Get a copy of the new law of the Catholic Church, The 1983 Code, and stop showing off by publishing the abrogated law in latin. Some of us still can translate it. So what. We are not impressed.

peace

 

[GerardP]

So was I.

Give credence to Vatican 2, and not fall into the ditch with all the heretic Traditionalists.

Get a copy of the new law of the Catholic Church, The 1983 Code, and stop showing off by publishing the abrogated law in latin. Some of us still can translate it. So what. We are not impressed.

peace

You’re confusing me with someone else on this thread. I’m not involved in the Canon Law discussions.

 

[mgrfin]

Mgrfin,

This would not apply to Protestants? Why?

A protestant child who is validly baptized is a member of the Church…is he not? When he grows up, if he decides to deny a dogma of the Church…why would it impossible that he be considered a heretic?

This is all based on the 1983 CIC, btw.

SFD

Please don’t refer to my ‘manifest ignorance’. This is a personal attack, to which I do not react to kindly.

You consistently refer to the 1917 Code which no longer exists.

You confuse the moral sin of heresy, and the juridical crime of heresy.

The Code and commentators make it clear that those outside the Catholic Church are not heretics, apostates, or schismatics. Get with the language of Vatican 2.

The Commentary of the Code of Canon law:
"The concepts of heresy, apostacy, and schism must be viewed within the framework of communion, the several elements of which are detailed in Lumen Gentium 14, 15, and in Unitatis Reintegratio 3.

"Christians are joined together by much more than the profession of common doctrine, not the least of which is unifying factors is charity.

Protestants can no longer be referred to as heretics.

Funny, your citation in the CIC is canon 751 which I have been quoting. It is not the other way around. The Catechism’s source is the Code.

peace.

 

[SFD]

Please don’t refer to my manifest ignorance. This is a personal attack.

You consistently refer to the 1917 Code which no longer exists.

You confuse the moral sin of heresy, and the juridical crime of heresy.

The Code and commentators make it clear that those outside the Catholic Church are not heretics, apostates, or schismatics. Get with the language of Vatican 2.

The Commentary of the Code of Canon law:
"The concepts of heresy, apostacy, and schism must be viewed within the framework of communion, the several elements of which are detailed in Lumen Gentium 14, 15, and in Unitatis Reintegratio 3.

"Christians are joined together by much more than the profession of common doctrine, not the least of which is unifying factors is charity.

Protestants can no longer be referred to as heretics.

peace.

mgrfin,

None of this answers the questions I asked. I used your CIC…now answer the questions about your own Code.

mgrfin:

The ‘new’ code, Canon 751, defines heresy as the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.

This would not apply to Protestants? Why?

A protestant child who is validly baptized is a member of the Church…is he not? When he grows up, if he decides to deny a dogma of the Church…why would it impossible that he be considered a heretic?

This is all based on the 1983 CIC, btw.

SFD

 

[GerardP]

And this is a red herring.

(sigh…) No. It’s not a red herring. I posted a clarification on a point that was tangentially relevant that might lead readers into confusion. You asked why. I answered you. Four times now.

A red herring would be useful as a distraction to avoid answering the main question. I’m certainly not running from that.

I even put the words “side note” when I explained why I mentioned St. Dismas.

You are saying that water baptism is absolutely necessary at all times in any situation. This is not Catholic doctrine. It is your faulty interpretation of Trent and the Church Fathers.

No. You are the one using the word “absolutely” in order to falsely give your liberal fallacy room to breathe. I don’t need to add words to Trent in order to accept it.

This is simply not relevant to this discussion. St. Alphonsus is not addressing this “distinction” of yours.

Then why do you keep going back to it? Just what is your complaint? That I clarified something by adding text from the Catechism of Trent? Or do you deny that Baptism was made obligatory after the Resurrection?

Do you know what moral unanimity is? Tell us please.

I’d love to tell you but I don’t have absolute certitude on the matter. Maybe I have moral certitude, but I could be wrong.

Really? And why does this phrase “need to be” in “an infallible definition” to be true Catholic doctrine?

You asked if St. Alphonsus read Trent incorrectly. I said the phrase Baptism of Desire is not proved by St. Alphonsus’ citation of Trent. Quite the opposite. It would need to be in an infallible declaration for St. Alphonsus to cite it correctly. It’s not. He didn’t.

But you are NOT appealing to the magisterium. Here is the maristerium tells us through Ven. Pope Pius IX:

It’s funny that you are citing a papal censure of German theologians to extend infallibility to theologians.

Right back at you with Pius XII: “God has given to His Church a living Teaching authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, nor even to theologians, but only to the teaching authority of the Church.”-Humani Generis

We all agree that we are only bound by the teaching of the Church. But you are ignoring the truth that the theologians are the experts that Pope Pius IX instructs us to learn from.

No. You misread Pius IX. He’s demanding that theologians consent to the constant teaching of the Church and their speculations must first submit to the dogmatic teachings of the Church.

In this way you set up a false comparison as though the choice were between being “bound” by theologians and being “bound” by the Church, when in fact they are the same thing.

No. I’m not doing that. I’m saying that you are undermining the teaching authority of the Church by subjecting dogmatic definitions to liberal redefinitions by non-infallible sources. When the theologians depart from the dogma or add to it, they are wrong.

And you seem to be blissfully unaware that you and others are preferring your own take on one text from Vatican I to the learned instructions of properly trained authorities.

No. We’re simply obeying the law of non-contradiction. You want non-infallible authorities to have authority over infallible teaching. That undermines the purpose of infallible definitions. What good is an infallible definition if no one is “qualified” to understand it but must resort to an unprotected source?

It is abundantly clear that you are not interested in a rational discussion based on proper authorities. You are wedded to a particular view, and are not able to defend it by showing where you learned it.

No. I am quite interested. But you won’t even address the embarassingly obvious points I’ve brought up that you are making the infallible teaching authority of the Church subject to fallible men. Along with your attempts to twist magisterial statements by selective quotations in order to turn them on their heads.

From the Draft and Final Text on Papal Infallibility and The “Relatio” of Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser Proposed to The Fathers (Bishops) of The First Vatican Council on July 11, 1870. Which Explain in Some Detail What is Meant by “Papal Infallibility”.

Nothing in that quote is contained that indicates that a Baptism can occur without water.

Trent stated infallibly that water is necessary. No equivocations. No "normative’ or “absolute” massaging by theologians or apologists changes the doctrine as defined by Trent. In fact, any attempt to remove the necessity of water into some kind of metaphor is anathema.

If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema

.

 

[SFD]

(sigh…) No. It’s not a red herring. I posted a clarification on a point that was tangentially relevant that might lead readers into confusion. You asked why. I answered you. Four times now.

A red herring would be useful as a distraction to avoid answering the main question. I’m certainly not running from that.

I think you are.

GerardP:

I even put the words “side note” when I explained why I mentioned St. Dismas.

Oh, yes…I noticed that too.

No. You are the one using the word “absolutely” in order to falsely give your liberal fallacy room to breathe. I don’t need to add words to Trent in order to accept it.

Gerard, you are the liberal here…you are no different that the dissident theologians being corrected by Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter and addressed by Cardinal Manning!

GerardP:

Then why do you keep going back to it? Just what is your complaint? That I clarified something by adding text from the Catechism of Trent?

You “clarified nothing”…you have interpreted Trent for yourself and told us that St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church, was wrong. Can’t you see how silly that makes you look?

GerardP:

Or do you deny that Baptism was made obligatory after the Resurrection?

Yes, it was. It is how man gains sanctifying grace in the normal economy of salvation. You’ve quoted Pope Pius XII for us several times…I’ll quote him here:
Pope Pius XII:

If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open.

GerardP:

I’d love to tell you but I don’t have absolute certitude on the matter. Maybe I have moral certitude, but I could be wrong.

You don’t need metaphysical certitude…moral certitude will suffice.

GerardP:

You asked if St. Alphonsus read Trent incorrectly. I said the phrase Baptism of Desire is not proved by St. Alphonsus’ citation of Trent. Quite the opposite.

St. Alphonsus TAUGHT IT AS DE FIDE! He is a Doctor of the Church and he and all the other theologians for the last 500 years have taught this as well. Why do you think YOU understand Trent better that he does?

It would need to be in an infallible declaration for St. Alphonsus to cite it correctly.

What? For a Doctor of the Church to cite a Council correctly it would need to be an infallible declaration?

GerardP:

It’s not. He didn’t.

And you’re off your rocker.

GerardP:

It’s funny that you are citing a papal censure of German theologians to extend infallibility to theologians.

It was a censure of individual theologians who disregarded the common teaching of theologians. Those things that are “theologically certain” or “proximate to the faith” were being denied by the liberal theologians who were doing exactly what you are doing here. That is what would be funny…if it wasn’t so serious.

GerardP:

Right back at you with Pius XII: “God has given to His Church a living Teaching authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, nor even to theologians, but only to the teaching authority of the Church.”-Humani Generis

Pius XII is censuring those individuals, theologians included, who were abandoning the teaching of the Church. He is not condemning the common consent of theologians…which is part of the teaching of the Church that is binding on us, as Pius IX clearly teaches in Tuas Libenter.

GerardP:

No. You misread Pius IX. He’s demanding that theologians consent to the constant teaching of the Church and their speculations must first submit to the dogmatic teachings of the Church.

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), Denz. 1684.

SFD

 

[SFD]

GerardP:

No. I’m not doing that. I’m saying that you are undermining the teaching authority of the Church by subjecting dogmatic definitions to liberal redefinitions by non-infallible sources. When the theologians depart from the dogma or add to it, they are wrong.

But as Pope Pius IX teaches us, when the theologians teach in unanimity, and attach theological “notes” to CERTAIN doctrines…and assign CENSURES to the denials of said doctrines, they are to be followed under pain of mortal sin.

Do you even know what a theological note is?

GerardP:

No. We’re simply obeying the law of non-contradiction. You want non-infallible authorities to have authority over infallible teaching. That undermines the purpose of infallible definitions. What good is an infallible definition if no one is “qualified” to understand it but must resort to an unprotected source?

This too, is almost funny. So the Canons and Decrees of Trent are to you…like the Bible is to a Protestant. You interpret them without any competent authority above you…amazing.

GerardP:

Nothing in that quote is contained that indicates that a Baptism can occur without water.

Trent stated infallibly that water is necessary. No equivocations. No "normative’ or “absolute” massaging by theologians or apologists changes the doctrine as defined by Trent. In fact, any attempt to remove the necessity of water into some kind of metaphor is anathema.

**Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7. **

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water “fluminis”], of desire “flaminis” = wind] and of blood.

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” “flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind “flamen”]. **Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.” **

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality “non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view * is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.*

• “Martyrdom is rightly called, and is, a certain baptism.” (On the Sacrament of Baptism, Bk. I, Ch. VI, (Tom. 3, p. 120A))
  “Concerning catechumens there is a greater difficulty, because they are faithful [have the faith] and can be saved if they die in this state, and yet outside the Church no one is saved, as outside the ark of Noah. …] I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved. (Of The Church Militant, III, 3, “Of those who are not baptized”)

Douay Catechism (by Henry Tuberville:

“Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?

“A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.”

Mgr. J. H. Hervé:

Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV) - 1931

II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:

“The various baptisms: from the Council of Trent itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied, namely an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one as it were generic name; so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood).”

SFD

 

[SFD]

GerardP:

No. I am quite interested. But you won’t even address the embarassingly obvious points I’ve brought up that you are making the infallible teaching authority of the Church subject to fallible men. Along with your attempts to twist magisterial statements by selective quotations in order to turn them on their heads.

I’ve more than addressed your arguments. Pope Pius IX and Cardinal Manning and St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine and Tuberville and Herve did it for me.

SFD

 

[Miles_Mariae]

This is the most authoritative citation the Catholic Church has expressed with regard to EENS.

Everything listed above that is contrary to this statement is either flat out wrong, vague or completely speculative private opinion.

THIS IS THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Accept it.

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, **unless before **death they are joined with Her; and that **so important is the unity **of this ecclesiastical body that **only those remaining within this **unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and **they alone **can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. **No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood **for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Can it not be argued that those who have an implicit desire for Baptism and perfect contrition (in the words of Pope St. Pius X, joined to the soul of the Church) are in unity with the Church? The section of Cantate Domino that you quoted does not seem to say that Sacrament itself is necessary to be in “the bosum and the unity of the Catholic Church”.

 

[mgrfin]

What I don’t understand is the refusal to accept the truth of the matter.

How can there be a “Baptism of Blood” as described in any Catechism when a Pope has infallibly stated that:

no one outside the Church can be saved. Because only inside the Church can someone benefit from the Sacraments to the point of salvation?

And that even pouring your blood out in Christ’s name will not save you if you are not in the unity that the Pope defined as “so important.”

To believe otherwise diminishes the importance of the sacraments.

Am I correct in understanding you that ‘baptism of blood’ is insufficient to gain salvation?

An act of perfect charity in love of God and our Saviour are insufficient to provide Faith, and sanctifying grace?

You are denying the fate of the Holy Innocents, and the salvation of all the martyrs since the time of Christ?

I would have to accept that baptism of blood is the common teaching of the Church, and I don’t need the Fathers, the Councils, the Popes to tell me so.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin,

None of this answers the questions I asked. I used your CIC…now answer the questions about your own Code.

This would not apply to Protestants? Why?

A protestant child who is validly baptized is a member of the Church…is he not? When he grows up, if he decides to deny a dogma of the Church…why would it impossible that he be considered a heretic?

This is all based on the 1983 CIC, btw.

SFD

He may be outside the Mystical Body of Christ, but he is not a heretic.

A heretic, as defined by Church law, is firstly a person who is a Roman Catholic. Protestants are not Roman Catholics, and cannot be subject to our laws. crimes, penalties.

This is all part of Church law, which regulates Catholics, in the same way that British tax law regulate Britons.

The teaching magisterium of the Church also defines who is a heretic or not.

peace

 

[fhansen]

Does it cause difficulties for anyone else that in Cantate Domino, Pope Eugene states that the Church believes, professes, and teaches that, among other things, circumcision cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation, whether or not a person places their hope in it? Or am I reading this wrong or missing something obvious?

 

[Sure]

fhansen,

That is a very interesting question. I had never noticed that line of Cantate Domino before.

You should start a separate thread for discussion.

 

[SFD]

mgrfin:

SFD:

mgrfin,

None of this answers the questions I asked. I used your CIC…now answer the questions about your own Code.

This would not apply to Protestants? Why?

A protestant child who is validly baptized is a member of the Church…is he not? When he grows up, if he decides to deny a dogma of the Church…why would it impossible that he be considered a heretic?

This is all based on the 1983 CIC, btw.

SFD

He may be outside the Mystical Body of Christ, but he is not a heretic.

No, a validily baptized baby is a member of the Catholic Church because of his valid baptism.

mgrfin:

A heretic, as defined by Church law, is firstly a person who is a Roman Catholic. Protestants are not Roman Catholics, and cannot be subject to our laws. crimes, penalties.

All are bound by divine law to enter the Catholic Church. Do you disagree with this statement?

mgrfin:

This is all part of Church law, which regulates Catholics, in the same way that British tax law regulate Britons.

The teaching magisterium of the Church also defines who is a heretic or not.

peace

The Church can excommunicate only those who are members of the Church…but heretics are outside the Church by their own act. This is implicit in the very nature of heresy.

Here’s the 1983 CIC:
CIC 1983:

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

SFD

 

[Sure]

No, a validily baptized baby is a member of the Catholic Church because of his valid baptism.

All are bound by divine law to enter the Catholic Church. Do you disagree with this statement?

The Church can excommunicate only those who are members of the Church…but heretics are outside the Church by their own act. This is implicit in the very nature of heresy.

Here’s the 1983 CIC:

SFD

Good post…it does seem though that one must reject a position put forward by the Church in order to be a heretic. It could be the case (certainly not always) that a man of a protestant community holds something that is contrary to the Catholic Faith but does not know that it is contrary. Such a case would not be a rejection of the truth and would not be heresy. In other words a man cannot be guilty of denial or obstinate doubt of something that he does not know is taught by the Church.

 

[GerardP]

Does it cause difficulties for anyone else that in Cantate Domino, Pope Eugene states that the Church believes, professes, and teaches that, among other things, circumcision cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation, whether or not a person places their hope in it? Or am I reading this wrong or missing something obvious?

The qualifier in that statement is “observe.”

Circumcision as a medical procedure is not “observing” as “ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments of the Old Law”

There are no religious reasons that can be justified for circumcision. That said, medical reasons may make it a non-culpable issue.

 

[Sure]

The qualifier in that statement is “observe.”

Circumcision as a medical procedure is not “observing” as “ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments of the Old Law”

There are no religious reasons that can be justified for circumcision. That said, medical reasons may make it a non-culpable issue.

But what of the line, “whether or not one places hope in it”?