Salvation

[EENS]

First, Trent said you can be justified by a desire for Baptism–NOT in a state of sanctifying grace. Justification is a process by which a person comes to sanctification (i.e. sanctifying grace). A person who desires Baptism is justified (i.e. has begun to be justified). Justification is a process.

As far as being being forgiven sins without Baptism, the St. Augustine teaches that sins can be remitted in three ways: by Baptism, by penance [the Sacrament and simply mortifications], and by prayer, yet God forgives sins only to the baptized. That is, a person who has been forgiven his sins by Baptism can also be forgiven by penance and prayer, but a person who is not baptized is not forgiven by these other means, which is in accord with the teaching of the Church at Florence: “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.”

As far as the letter from the Holy Office: it is NOT INFALLIBLE. Read that over a few times. You seem to have missed this obvious point, and you pass it off as if it is from the mouth of Christ Himself. Now, not only is it not infallible… it was not even written by Pius XII. On top of that, never does it say that a person’s Faith can be implicit. The constant teaching of the Church about this and of St. Thomas Aquinas says that a person must believe in God, that He is Renumerator, in the Blessed Trinity, and in the Incarnation. These cannot be implicit, even according to the Holy Office.

As far as an implicit desire for Baptism sufficing, that is simply not taught anywhere in the Tradition of the Chuch. It is a fabrication that has infested the Church today, and even for some time. It was most surely condemned by Blessed Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X. The condemnation of modernism by these two Popes holds more weight than the teaching of some Cardinal (not even the Pope). Blessed Pius IX most clearly states: “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ [is hereby condemned as error].” (Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863)

 

[marineboy]

eens just go back and read trent–it doesnt say what u said it says–it defines jsutification as “the transformation from the state of adam to the state ofgrace–then says one cannot achieve this without the laver of regeneration–or its desire.” hello?? anyone home?? the holy office’s letter sint infallible, but neither is ur interpretation of EENS–and the letter does absolutley say that "faith that lead to salavation need not always be explicit. like i said before since no church document says that “only formal members go to heaven” you have to interpret eens and i think i will take the holy office’s interpretation over yours.

 

[Apolonio]

EENS,’

You’re talking about initial justification. But there is such a thing as final justification. If a person follows truth and through no fault of his own, dies before being baptized, then he can be saved through baptism of desire. That’s how baptism of desire was always taught. Baptism of desire was always thought of in the context of final justification of the person.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Apolonio:

Baptism of desire was always thought of in the context of final justification of the person.

A useful distinction.

 

[gladtobe]

According to the Vatican decree with the Lutherans, all who place their faith in Christ are justified before God. Pope John Paul also added that even those in heathen religions who seek God in their own way, though ignorant of the gospel still can find a place in heaven.

 

[Chris_W]

The initial state of Sanctifying Grace occurs at Baptism. That’s the purpose of Baptism, right? Now, the Catholic Church, on receiving a Protestant convert, does not re-baptise the person, right? Why? Because the Church recognizes a Protestant Baptism as a valid Baptism, right?

Okay. If the purpose of Baptism is to bring the person into the initial state of Sanctifying Grace, thus becoming a child of God. And if Protestant Baptism is valid, thus also causing that initial state of sanctifying grace. Then we can conclude that if a person died after having been baptised into a protestant church, before having committed any mortal sin, then…

…that protestant goes to heaven, without ever having been a formal member of the Catholic Church…

…thus, disproving EENS’ interpretation. (sorry EENS )

 

[gladtobe]

I agree with that sentiment. Sincere faith in Jesus Christ’s death, burial and resurrection is the key. One must remember we all travel a road of learning God’s truths as we pass through this life. Some never grasp all the teachings of the Lord and his apostles as they were passed on through the church. But God does look at where the believer is on the road of life. This is what we must understand. Heaven will be filled with believers from all Christian churches who hail Christ as their Savior. From the simple to the theologian. It is not about what you know and what you do, but where do you place your hope of salvation. On the solid Rock I stand, all other things are sinking sand.

 

[BecomeLowly]

Hello EENS,

Thank you for providing the article and your presepective. I will read the article in its entirety, do some further research, and reply. I may take a while, but I promise I will do so. I appreciate your thorough and thoughtful approach.

Gladtobe,
It was interesting to see your posts. They certainly sound sincere, but also as though they are advancing a Protestant veiw. I could be misunderstanding what you are saying, and I apologize if I am. Are you saying that belief in Jesus only necessary element?

I’ll be posting soon!

Yours,
Jessica

 

[EENS]

Apolonio and marineboy (galdtrobe see below),

You’re talking about initial justification. But there is such a thing as final justification.

That’s my exact point. There is initial and final justification, and since Trent simply says “justification”, it could be read as either initial or final justification. I chose, with the majority of the Church Fathers, to read that as “initial” justification, meaning that such a person who desires Baptism has not been finally justified and therefore cannot be saved.

If a person follows truth and through no fault of his own, dies before being baptized, then he can be saved through baptism of desire. That’s how baptism of desire was always taught.

I assume you mean here a person who is a catechumen and desires to be baptized. That is how Baptism of Desire was always taught, but it was *never *taught by the Church. It is a theory of some, but it is not taught by the Church. No one must give any assent of mind or will to such a teaching. I do not do so, as it seems to contradict the words of Our Lord Himself in St. John iii.5, which is the opinion of the great majority of early Church Fathers.

Baptism of desire was always thought of in the context of final justification of the person.

It may have been, but that is not my argument. My argument is in what Trent actually taught itself. It doesn’t explicitly say just that; therefore, it is not necessary to believe it. And even if Trent did say that (which, as I said, it did not), it was not in an infallible declaration but simply an explanatory paragraph, which part of a Council does not enjoy the charism of infallibility.

gladtrobe,

According to the Vatican decree with the Lutherans, all who place their faith in Christ are justified before God.

I don’t know if the document says that or not, but if it does, it is rank and file heresy. The Church has always and will always teach, since it is infallibly defined, that only those who have Faith in ALL Christ taught (i.e. assent to the Church/Pope) are justified. Unam Sanctam infallible defined this truth: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope John Paul also added that even those in heathen religions who seek God in their own way, though ignorant of the gospel still can find a place in heaven.

The only way to Heaven is through the Church. The means of salvation for those heathens and pagans is by entrance into the Ark of Salvation, the Church. Just as there was no hope for salvation for the pagans, heathens, and immoral persons outside of the Ark of Noe when the deluge prevailed, so, too, when death prevails over such a person, if he is not found to be within Holy Mother Church, he, too, is lost in the flood.

You also said:

I agree with that sentiment. Sincere faith in Jesus Christ’s death, burial and resurrection is the key. One must remember we all travel a road of learning God’s truths as we pass through this life. Some never grasp all the teachings of the Lord and his apostles as they were passed on through the church. But God does look at where the believer is on the road of life. This is what we must understand. Heaven will be filled with believers from all Christian churches who hail Christ as their Savior. From the simple to the theologian. It is not about what you know and what you do, but where do you place your hope of salvation. On the solid Rock I stand, all other things are sinking sand.

This is rank heresy. There is no salvation outside the Church. You have completely denied that. You have changed this into: there is no salvation save in our Lord Jesus Christ. That is true, but explicit belief in Christ is not sufficient for salvation. This has been defined by the Church many times. As far as your refering to the “rock”; you missed the point that St. Peter is the Rock, per Our Lord (c.f. St. Matthew xvi. 18). Yes, standing upon that Rock is a sure way to Truth and salvation; standing upon one’s own ideas about Christ and the salvation of heretics is not a rock but the sand upon which the foolish man builds his house.

 

[EENS]

Chris W,

The initial state of Sanctifying Grace occurs at Baptism. That’s the purpose of Baptism, right? Now, the Catholic Church, on receiving a Protestant convert, does not re-baptise the person, right?

Wrong. The Church for time immemorial has baptized conditionally Protestant converts, since their Baptism before was at least suspect on account of the necessary intentionfor a valid Baptism, which is “to do as the Church does”.

Why? Because the Church recognizes a Protestant Baptism as a valid Baptism, right?

Wrong. The Baptism is only to be considered valid when the proper form, matter, and intention are fulfilled. That is, a Triune Baptism, with water (and it must be on the skin, not the clothes or hair only–which is a consequence often when the person is only sprinkled), and the intention must be to do "as the Church does". It is hard to imagine any protestant religion or otherwise has this intention. Possibly the eastern schismatics do this properly, but otherwise it would be absurd to assume the correct intention, especially when the “minister” gives a speech beforehand that says, “We believe this is merely a symbol, etc.” That is why the Church always in times past conditionally baptized those whose Baptism is suspect.

we can conclude that if a person died after having been baptised into a protestant church, before having committed any mortal sin, then…

…that protestant goes to heaven, without ever having been a formal member of the Catholic Church…

No, we can’t conclude that at all, since the Church has defined infallibly contraywise to that idea. Yes, mortal sin condemns a person to hell, but so does being outside the Church. This has been defined as infallible. And a person who lives in ignorance in a protestant religion can scarcely be said to be inculpably ignorant. Such a person has access to the Bible, which so clearly teaches Catholic doctrine blatantly denied by the evil sect of protestantism. Moreover, the person need only to look at the history his religion to see that it was created by a man and not by God nor by His Son our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not possible to excuse such a one by inculpable ignorance. Such a person is in a state of culpable ignorance, and he will be damned if he does not inform himself. And even if such a person could exist in inculpable ignorance, we must say with the Church: he could still not be saved unless he enter herein. The Church alone is the Ark of Salvation. If a person is truly invincibly ignorant, God would reveal Himself to that person so that he could be saved, since God wills that all be saved, and if He did not do this, it would be to contradict His Word in the Holy Gospels as well as that spoken through His Vicars from the first century until present day, assuring us that there is no hope for salvation for anyone whosever outside our Holy Mother, the Church.

 

[Apolonio]

EENS,

" I chose, with the majority of the Church Fathers, to read that as “initial” justification, meaning that such a person who desires Baptism has not been finally justified and therefore cannot be saved."

Response:
I’m sorry EENS, but that’s simply a non-sequitur. If a person has not been finally justified in a certain circumstance, it does not follow that he cannot be saved. It may be that he can be finally justified just before he dies and then at that moment, he is justified.

“I assume you mean here a person who is a catechumen and desires to be baptized. That is how Baptism of Desire was always taught, but it was never taught by the Church. It is a theory of some, but it is not taught by the Church. No one must give any assent of mind or will to such a teaching. I do not do so, as it seems to contradict the words of Our Lord Himself in St. John iii.5, which is the opinion of the great majority of early Church Fathers.”

Response:
Baptism of desire was always taught in the context that if water baptism is not available, then the person can be saved through the same effects of water baptism. To say that a cathechumen “desires to be baptized” is not the same as baptism of desire. I don’t know where you get that, but that’s not in the sacramental theology of either Aquinas, Augustine, Chrysostom, Basil, or the Gregorys.

"Unam Sanctam infallible defined this truth: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Response:
The context of Unam Sanctam is an apostolic letter to a king (if I remember correctly). It is intended to all Catholics who are in the Church. When the Protestant Reformation started, it was started by Catholics. Hence, to the Catholics who went along with the reformation, they were declared to be heretics. But that does not mean that every Protestant today is a heretic in the same sense as it was used then. You must distinguish between formal and material heretic. Protestants today are material heretics, but it does not mean they are not connected to the Church in some way. The word “Church” has always been Christo-centric. Those who are in the Church, the people of God, are those who are in communion with Christ. The communion with Christ forms a communion with other followers of Christ, and that’s how you have the Church. Now, a person who is baptized in the Protestant sect is in some way, connected to the Church because he is also connected to Christ (because of baptism). It is an imperfect communion, but a communion nonetheless. That is the context of EENS. That is simple Patristic ecclesiology in a few statements. That’s how you must understand why Vatican 2 and Pope John Paul II speaks of how, through no fault of the person, he can be saved. “No one outside the Church can be saved” is a dogma.But if a person desires Christ, though imperfectly united to the Church, is he still “in theChurch?” The Church says yes.

And since you said that Trent is not infallible and it’s not explicit on how it defined “desire,” then you have to submit to the interpretation of the magisterium,whom alone can interpret Tradition. Other than that, you are engaging in private interpretation which has also been condemned by Trent.

 

[Apolonio]

Also, see Garrigou-Lagrange’s “Our Savior and His Love for Us” on the section of EENS. His interpretation fits mine perfectly

 

[pnewton]

I have to side with the apologist here who have answered this repeatedly. (not to mention the writers of the Catechism) The strict interpretation given by Feeney is a heresy which resulted in his ex-communication, putting him “outside the visible church.”

 

[EENS]

" I chose, with the majority of the Church Fathers, to read that as “initial” justification, meaning that such a person who desires Baptism has not been finally justified and therefore cannot be saved."

Response:
I’m sorry EENS, but that’s simply a non-sequitur. If a person has not been finally justified in a certain circumstance, it does not follow that he cannot be saved. It may be that he can be finally justified just before he dies and then at that moment, he is justified.

If what I said is a non-sequiter, then what you are saying is all the more… I have said: Trent says that the person can be justified. It does not say final justification. And if a person can ONLY BE INITIALLY JUSTIFIED by desire, then it does not follow that a person even with explicit desire for baptism can be saved. You have said: just because a person is not justified at one time does not mean he later will not be finally justified and saved, seemingly saying that therefore since a person has had an initial justification is is possible (and even necessary) that he will also die finally justified. That is a non-sequiter, especially since the only final justification is in Baptism.

“I assume you mean here a person who is a catechumen and desires to be baptized. That is how Baptism of Desire was always taught, but it was never taught by the Church. It is a theory of some, but it is not taught by the Church. No one must give any assent of mind or will to such a teaching. I do not do so, as it seems to contradict the words of Our Lord Himself in St. John iii.5, which is the opinion of the great majority of early Church Fathers.”

Response:
Baptism of desire was always taught in the context that if water baptism is not available, then the person can be saved through the same effects of water baptism. To say that a cathechumen “desires to be baptized” is not the same as baptism of desire. I don’t know where you get that, but that’s not in the sacramental theology of either Aquinas, Augustine, Chrysostom, Basil, or the Gregorys.

What, may I ask, exactly is “baptism of desire” if not a desire to be baptized?

"Unam Sanctam infallible defined this truth: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Response:
The context of Unam Sanctam is an apostolic letter to a king (if I remember correctly). It is intended to all Catholics who are in the Church.

Yes, it was a letter to a king, so what? That doesn’t mean what it says is not true. Everyone, not just Catholics, are oblidged to show obedience to the Holy Pontiff. No where is it even indicated otherwise.

When the Protestant Reformation started, it was started by Catholics. Hence, to the Catholics who went along with the reformation, they were declared to be heretics. But that does not mean that every Protestant today is a heretic in the same sense as it was used then. You must distinguish between formal and material heretic.

Of course, I agree here.

Protestants today are material heretics, but it does not mean they are not connected to the Church in some way.

Their only connection is in theirBaptism, but Baptism outside the Church does not carry the effects of Baptism, since they are not a part of the Mystical Body, which is necessary for salvation, per the Fathers of the Church.

The word “Church” has always been Christo-centric. Those who are in the Church, the people of God, are those who are in communion with Christ. The communion with Christ forms a communion with other followers of Christ, and that’s how you have the Church. Now, a person who is baptized in the Protestant sect is in some way, connected to the Church because he is also connected to Christ (because of baptism). It is an imperfect communion, but a communion nonetheless. That is the context of EENS. That is simple Patristic ecclesiology in a few statements.

Yes, I assert the same above, but such a “communion” if it is even rightly so called is not sufficient for salvation.

[see next post]

 

[EENS]

That’s how you must understand why Vatican 2 and Pope John Paul II speaks of how, through no fault of the person, he can be saved. “No one outside the Church can be saved” is a dogma.But if a person desires Christ, though imperfectly united to the Church, is he still “in theChurch?” The Church says yes.

No, the Pope might say yes, but the Church most assuredly does not, just as when John XXII said that there is no particular judgment, that does not mean the Church said it. In fact, the next Pope condemned such a belief again to make it clear. He stated it infallibly. Just because John Paul II hold a belief does not mean it is the teaching of the Church.

And since you said that Trent is not infallible

I didn’t say that. I said that not every word of Trent is infallible, according to Vatican I, and that is true. Only the Canons and declarations “We declare, say, define, pronounce, etc.” are infallible, not the commentary.

 

[EENS]

pwnton

I have to side with the apologist here who have answered this repeatedly. (not to mention the writers of the Catechism) The strict interpretation given by Feeney is a heresy which resulted in his ex-communication, putting him “outside the visible church.”

Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated for his teaching about outside the Church. Moreover, said excommunication was rescinded before his death by Paul VI.

As far as your argument, it leaves much lacking. “The apologists here say so”? That is hardly an argument. How about the apologetics from catholicism.org? What do they say? Moreover, if the Council of Trent is not clear enough to be interpretated by laymen, then certainly the wordy and unclear CCC cannot be personally interpreted either.

 

[JimG]

Father Feeney taught an extra-rigorist interpretation of 'extra ecclesiam nulla sanctus," and was ordered by the Vatican to stop teaching that interpretation. He refused, and was excommunicated for disobedience. But he was reconciled with the Church before his death.

What I could never understand is this: Feeney taught that formal membership in the Church was required for salvation. Being excommunicated put him outside of formal membership in the Church, and thus, according to his doctrine, he could not be saved. Yet that did not seem to worry him at the time.

 

[Chris_W]

EENS:

Wrong. The Church for time immemorial has baptized conditionally Protestant converts, since their Baptism before was at least suspect on account of the necessary intentionfor a valid Baptism, which is “to do as the Church does”.
.

Sounds reasonable. But wouldn’t the mere fact that it is “conditional” indicate that the potential exists for a Protestant baptism to be valid? If not, then we wouldn’t perform a “conditional” baptism. And if it is even possible possible that a protestant baptism be valid, then your interpretation of Church teaching is in error.

If a protestant baptism can be valid, and the person were to die without having committed a mortal sin, thereby dying in the state of Sanctifying Grace, how can you argue they would not be saved? That doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[pnewton]

EENS:

As far as your argument, it leaves much lacking. “The apologists here say so”? That is hardly an argument. How about the apologetics from catholicism.org? What do they say? Moreover, if the Council of Trent is not clear enough to be interpretated by laymen, then certainly the wordy and unclear CCC cannot be personally interpreted either.

Absolutely it leaves much lacking, but I find all the above to be far clearer than your posts and arguments. I definitely find the CCC easier than the council of Trent which, as with all historical documents, requires context.

I do not know it all. There are areas in which I am not as well-steeped than many in the Church. That is why I must lay some faith in the authority structure of the church. As far as apologists like Jimmy Akin, he has shown his knowledge in the past and is a balanced man who speaks only where the church speaks. He is not out to promote an agenda.

I find this far more credible than an unknown poster from wherever whose views are…unique.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

EENS,

Pope St. Pius X taught the following clearly enough, which seems contrary to your thesis…

**29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? **

A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed*** separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation***

(Catechism of Pius X)