Salvation outside the church

[SemperFidelis]

How can so many bishops not understand enough theology to know when they’re saying something inconsistent with Catholicism?

They mostly know what they’re doing is contradicting the consistent Dogmas of the Church. They, unfortunately, have been infected with modernism and liberalism (both condemned by numerous Popes). This in no way effects the infectibility of the Church. One should either ignore what they say when it so clearly contradicts Dogma, or lawfully question and correct according to the dictates of St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Robert Bellarmine.

Or do they just not care?

That’s probably a good question. Many would answer in the affirmative.

How is that possible? Is this the end times?

Our Lady of La Salette, Pope Leo XIII, and many others predicted the existence of such rampant apostacy and heresy in the Church in the 20th century, but then said things would turn around. Pope Benedict XVI is fortunately starting to slowly do this. Deo Gratias for that!

 

[t68ware]

I just listened to Catholic Answers today on my local radio station and the speaker said that one can find salvation OUTSIDE the Catholic Church, but they are not considered a “full Christian”. Also, I am going to RCIA classes and am Protestant (gasp!) and my class still refers to me as a Christian because I have been baptised and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord. My understanding of the Catholic teaching on this question is baptised Christians outside the Catholic can still get to Heaven, but are not in total communion with the Catholic Church. If you think what i have written above is wrong, then the Catholic Church has people teaching false doctrine.

 

[SFD]

“Let us pray, and also for the Jews. May our God and Lord enlighten their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, saviour of all men.”

There is no uncertainty in the meaning of these words.

We were discussing the change in the prayer…not arguing that everything in the new prayer was false.

I meant that our judgments rightly have no authority, force or value as far as the Church is concerned.

And your point is? You (and others) say we cannot judge…but we do and we must judge…for ourselves…not for others.

The pope is the divinely selected Vicar of Christ, which means that he can allow anything he wants for purposes we cannot clearly see if see at all. The fact that he can imitate God in this capacity doesn’t mean I think the pope is God.

I think this idea is false…that the Pope can do anything he wants…and we must accept it because of some providential idea that it must be good. I do accept everything that has in fact happened as part of God’s providence…but a pope is still bound by divine law, is he not?

First, if permission was approval, as you say, you turn God into the approver of sin. Secondly, the pope has better things to do than to read and comment upon the thousands and thousands of letter that comes out of the various Vatican offices with the official letterhead on it.

Weak…very weak. The pope’s permission is his tacit approval…when these things are brought to his attention (assuming he does not know what Kasper is doing) he must correct them. We are not talking about some unknown document here.

It’s silly. This is not an interpretive document of the Holy See, but a smooth-talking private letter from the head of a pontifical council to some Rabbi in New York.

You seem to dismiss an awful lot for a guy who says he is obedient to Rome…what is Rome? Only the pope? And who are you to determine what things are important or unimportant?

I agree that no one is really bound to use this prayer.

Really…and no one was bound to use the Novus Ordo Missae either…right? Where is the Pope in all of this…he’s just some guy you decide whether or not he is actually being authortative or not…aren’t you supposed to follow your Bishop anyway?

It doesn’t come from the Roman Pontiff or even come from the curial agencies authorized to make such changes (e.g. CDWDS, Ecclesia Dei). This most irregular release of a liturgical change through the Secretary of State indicates that agencies and publishing houses under Bertone’s administrative authority must use and print the change and that other Catholics may use it also if they choose.

And you determine this for the Catholics?

SFD

 

[Just_a_Thought]

We were discussing the change in the prayer…not arguing that everything in the new prayer was false.

The issue was clarity. The new prayer is perfectly clear: We are praying that God will enlighten the hearts of Jews so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ as the savior of all men. This is exactly the same thing as praying for their conversion.

We are using the term according to different meanings. You said that we can only judge externals, I said we can’t even judge that much. In the language of the Church, “judgment” has a specific and juridical meaning. It doesn’t mean the act of reason, but an authoritative act of interpretation or evaluation.

I think this idea is false…that the Pope can do anything he wants…and we must accept it because of some providential idea that it must be good. I do accept everything that has in fact happened as part of God’s providence…but a pope is still bound by divine law, is he not?

I didn’t say that the pope can do whatever he wants or that everything he does is good or that he is not bound by divine law. I only say that he - like any other man - may imitate God.

Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Libertas, no. 33: [The Church] does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. God Himself in His providence, though infinitely good and powerful, permits evil to exist in the world, partly that greater good may not be impeded, and partly that greater evil may not ensue. In the government of States it is not forbidden to imitate the Ruler of the world

Weak…very weak. The pope’s permission is his tacit approval…when these things are brought to his attention (assuming he does not know what Kasper is doing) he must correct them. We are not talking about some unknown document here.

Show me a dogma, canon or law that requires the pope to do this.

You seem to dismiss an awful lot for a guy who says he is obedient to Rome…what is Rome? Only the pope? And who are you to determine what things are important or unimportant?

I don’t dismiss anything. I take everything for what it is and this is a letter written by Cardinal Kaspar to some Rabbi in New York. You are treating it like a magisterial document, an official act of the Apostolic See, but there is no basis for this opinion. For it to be an official magisterial document it must be shown to and explicitly approved by the Roman Pontiff. Not every speech, letter or homily by someone employed in the Curia is thereby a magisterial act. By the way, guess who turns 75 in March and has already submitted his resignation?

Really…and no one was bound to use the Novus Ordo Missae either…right? Where is the Pope in all of this…he’s just some guy you decide whether or not he is actually being authortative or not…aren’t you supposed to follow your

Bishop anyway?
Although the TLM was never technically abrogated, any priest who had not received prior dispensation became bound on 11/30/1969 to use the new Roman Missal as decreed in the last paragraphs of the pope’s Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum.

And you

determine this for the Catholics?
No. It is determined by the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, which lays out the nature, functions and competencies of the various dicastories of the Roman Curia.

[/QUOTE]

 

[SemperFidelis]

I just listened to Catholic Answers today on my local radio station and the speaker said that one can find salvation OUTSIDE the Catholic Church, but they are not considered a “full Christian”.

I find this interesting as they teach this on their website:

catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

and:

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909frs.asp

I wonder why they got a heretical leaning speaker on their radio station which contradicts what is on their website.

Also, I am going to RCIA classes and am Protestant (gasp!) and my class still refers to me as a Christian because I have been baptised and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord.

This is correct. The Catholic Church has recognized those Baptisms outside the Church, where the intent is to do what the Church does, as valid from the very beginning of its history.

My understanding of the Catholic teaching on this question is baptised Christians outside the Catholic can still get to Heaven, but are not in total communion with the Catholic Church

This is also correct. The best explanation I have come across for this has been from the Baltimore Catechism #4. I will post the text of the Catechism referring to this in my next post.

If you think what i have written above is wrong, then the Catholic Church has people teaching false doctrine.

The Catholic Church hasn’t taught anyone false doctrine, just certain fallible people inside of it. This is a big difference from what you stated. If what you said above is true, then the CA Radio speaker is apart of this. It is sad fact unfortunately and is due to the times we live in. The Church will come out unscathed in the end though. You can be assured of that as Jesus Christ promised it would be so.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Here ya’ go t68ware, straight from the Fourth Baltimore Catechism:
The Baltimore Catechism:

1. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
   A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.

Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.

In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.

Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never – even in the past – had the slightest doubt of that fact – what will become of him?

If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister – not being a true priest – has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition – that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic – with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts – might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.

If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.

I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.

I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.

 

[bobzills]

Nope. You are, by whether you hold as true First Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, Number 3. Do you?

Here it is again: 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.

And here from the same document, is this precurser - just to set the context for the canon in question:

Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
SESSION 3 : 24 April 1870, Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith, Chapter 4, Number 14:

This is interesting, except that you have not answered the query concerning the change of faith involved in adding the filioque to the creed. As you know, Pope Leo III opposed the insertion of the Filioque to the Creed on the express ground that the General Councils had forbidden any addition to be made to their formula. Additionally, to show his opp;osition to the insertion of the filioque in the creed, Pope Leo III arranged for the creed without the filioque clause to be engraved on silver tablets and had them placed at St. Peter’s tomb. Please see: Labbe and Cossart. Concilia, Tom. vii., col. 1194.
And if you would go to Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus you would read: “Canon VII
WHEN these things had been read, the Holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (eteran) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Spirit in Nicaea.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.
And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been said. “
Now the original creed as it was promulgated at that time, did not say anything about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son. However, this was added later, even though Pope Leo III opposed it. Do you mean then to tell me that because of this change, and becasue of what you have quoted here, that anyone who says the creed with the filioque is anathematized?

 

[bobzills]

Cardinal Kasper has contradicted a Dogma of the Church, …

Cardinal Kasper has submitted his resignation to the Pope:
kreuz.net/article.6670.html
Rücktritt eingereicht

Vatikan. Der deutsche Kurienkardinal Walter Kardinal Kasper hat seinen Rücktritt als Präsident des Päpstlichen Einheitsrates eingereicht. Das berichtete ‘Radio Vatikan’. Der Kardinal feiert am 5. März seinen 75. Geburtstag. Vor ‘Radio Vatikan’ deutete er an, daß er gerne noch länger Präsident der Ökumenekommission bleiben würde.
I don’t see where the Pope has accepted his resignation. Does anyone see this? At this point, I don;t know if the Pope accepted or refused his resignation. But anyway, the Cardinal says that he wants to stay on as President of the Ecumenical commission.
Now if Cardinal Kasper is a mason, or a heretic or is causing problems by contradicting a Dogma of the Church, why would the Pope refuse to accept his resignation and instead urge him to continue his work in the Church?

 

[DustinsDad]

…As you know, Pope Leo III opposed the insertion of the Filioque to the Creed on the express ground that the General Councils had forbidden any addition to be made to their formula…

Not familiar with all these details so I’ll just go by what you have written here. , but ok, let’s see where you’re going with this…

…And if you would go to Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus you would read: “Canon VII
WHEN these things had been read, the Holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (eteran) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Spirit in Nicaea.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith…they shall be anathematized.
…

Now the original creed as it was promulgated at that time, did not say anything about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son. However, this was added later, even though Pope Leo III opposed it. Do you mean then to tell me that because of this change, and becasue of what you have quoted here, that anyone who says the creed with the filioque is anathematized?

Of course not - the filioque does not contradict previously defined doctrine/dogma - it does not, to quote the Council of Ephesus - “compose a different Faith”.

Now if the Church at one time had said, “If anyone saith the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, let him be anathema”, and then later added the filioque, well you might be on to something. But it didn’t.

You see, there can be a legitimate deepening of understanding of the deposit of faith over time, a greater articulation and precision of language - but such deepening of understanding cannot change, cannot contradict what has already been revealed infallibly. This isn’t such a radical concept my friend, quoting from CA’s Pillar of Fire:Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.
Would you agree with this? And if so, how do you mean what you wrote back in post #587?

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

Cardinal Kasper has submitted his resignation to the Pope:

What timing! Perhaps Pope Benedict was browsing the forums.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

This is interesting, except that you have not answered the query concerning the change of faith involved in adding the filioque to the creed.

Bob, the two ‘changes’ in doctrine are not analogous. The creed with the filioque does not contradict the creed without the filioque. Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son does not contradict that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

The change in doctrine or dogma being discussed here would contradict the ‘old’ teaching. Now do you understand the difference and why the comparison isn’t valid?

 

[catharina]

Bob, the two ‘changes’ in doctrine are not analogous. The creed with the filioque does not contradict the creed without the filioque. Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son does not contradict that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

The change in doctrine or dogma being discussed here would contradict the ‘old’ teaching. Now do you understand the difference and why the comparison isn’t valid?

Brilliant analysis. Kudos. Reminds me most of the fact that taught truth regarding Mary, Mother of Christ, evolved rather slowly over time - with nothing in contradiction to older teachings.

 

[t68ware]

Here ya’ go t68ware, straight from the Fourth Baltimore Catechism:

So, from what I understand, it IS possible for salvation outside the RCC as long as you are baptised and commit no moral sin, which I cannot see how that is possible, but that is another discussion. So we Protestants can be called Christians, but our salvation may not be guaranteed due to moral sin?? It seems to me Catholics and Protestants have different definitions as to what a “Christian” is.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

So, from what I understand, it IS possible for salvation outside the RCC as long as you are baptised and commit no moral sin, which I cannot see how that is possible, but that is another discussion. So we Protestants can be called Christians, but our salvation may not be guaranteed due to moral sin?? It seems to me Catholics and Protestants have different definitions as to what a “Christian” is.

Protestants are definitely Christians, since they’ve been baptized. One obvious mortal sin of great concern would be rejecting God’s requirement that you become a full member of his Church. The big hope we have for people who die without becoming Catholic is that they really didn’t know any better, so they won’t be blamed for those sins. But it’s all kind of iffy!

 

[SemperFidelis]

So, from what I understand, it IS possible for salvation outside the RCC

This is where you delve a little bit. Precise language is of the utmost importance here. There is no salvation outside the Church, but that doesn’t mean only Catholics who are Baptized card-carrying members of the Church can be saved. Someone visibly outside the Church who is saved, such as a protestant (or someone who is invincibly ignorant of the Church) who had a Trinitarian Baptism (or Baptism of Desire in the case of the invincibly ignorant) and who was free from mortal sin at the time of death, is actually not outside the Church, but is inside and is really Catholic and not protestant. Only Catholics go to heaven. The protestant I just spoke of would be joined to the soul of the Church, and hence inside it. This does not contradict outside the Church there is no salvation. This is what has been taught since the time of the Early Church Fathers.

as long as you are baptised and commit no moral sin, which I cannot see how that is possible,

I’m sure it’s possible, but it’s probably very rare. The Catholic Church alone is the means of salvation, and without the Sacraments it is very difficult to be saved. Those who are invincibly ignorant (protestants and otherwise) will have a hard time staying away from mortal sin their entire lives, but it is possible. Pope Blessed Pius IX forbade anyone from trying to discern who was trully invincibly ignorant and who was not. The Catholic Church has never declared anyone to be in hell, and it is likewise forbidden to go into any further inquiry on those who are invincibly ignorant and whether they are saved or not.

So we Protestants can be called Christians, but our salvation may not be guaranteed due to moral sin??

No one’s salvation is guaranteed. Anyone who dies with mortal sin on the soul will not be saved, Catholic or otherwise. Catholics just have a far easier time being forgiven of mortal sin (due to Confession and Catholic instruction on how to make an act of Perfect Contrition) than those visibly outside the Church.

It seems to me Catholics and Protestants have different definitions as to what a “Christian” is.

Yes.

 

[bobzills]

Bob, the two ‘changes’ in doctrine are not analogous. The creed with the filioque does not contradict the creed without the filioque. Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son does not contradict that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

The change in doctrine or dogma being discussed here would contradict the ‘old’ teaching. Now do you understand the difference and why the comparison isn’t valid?

Please explain how procession from one source is exactly the same as procession from two sources?
At one time it was taught that the procession is from one source, and it was said that any change in this teaching would result in an anathema. Later on, as it is taught now, the procession is from two sources.
Why is not this a change in teaching of some sort?

 

[bobzills]

What timing! Perhaps Pope Benedict was browsing the forums.

However, there is no indication that the Pope has accepted his resignation. And still, Cardinal Kasper is intent in staying on in an important capacity.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Please explain how procession from one source is exactly the same as procession from two sources?
At one time it was taught that the procession is from one source, and it was said that any change in this teaching would result in an anathema. Later on, as it is taught now, the procession is from two sources.
Why is not this a change in teaching of some sort?

It’s not exactly the same. However, the earlier statement “proceeds from the Father” does not address whether or not the Spirit proceeds from the Son. It does not make a statement about it.

If the earlier creed had said “… proceeds only from the Father” then the filioque could never have been added. In fact the earlier creed did not rule out that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Does that make sense? So the filioque was something new, in that the old creed didn’t say whether or not the Spirit proceeds from the Son, but the new creed does say.

 

[bobzills]

It’s not exactly the same. .

OK.
That was my point.
Thanks.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

OK.
That was my point.
Thanks.

And my point is that the ‘new’ teachings can’t contradict the old ones. Sure we develop teachings and come up with new teachings that weren’t clearly expressed before. But they can’t contradict something that was taught in the past.

Do you get that point?