Sermon: No Salvation outside the Catholic Church

[Lief_Erikson]

Could someone point a new RCIA explorer to where this is stated, that specifically only Roman Catholics are eligible for salvation?

If this is true, then I surly hope that Catholics are doing everything in our power to convert every single human being on the planet, and have done so since the inseption of the Church.

Someone please point me to a real literal, Biblical example of this.

This teaching needs to be explained, and a lot of people have been doing it in this thread. The meaning of this teaching is a bit more complicated than it might seem on the surface.

Here are some Vatican teachings on it from Lumen Gentium:

1. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
2. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.
3. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Lutfy,

There are a lot of kooks on this thread. You don’t have to be a Catholic to be saved. You must be baptized to be saved. There are 3 ways to be baptized.

As Lumen Gentium, which I just brought up, says, baptism is the doorway into the Church. If you’re baptized, you are in the Church, though your unity with her may be incomplete. Baptism by desire and by blood, just like baptism by water, establish a person’s unity with the Church and therefore do make those that receive Catholic, though not necessarily in full communion yet.

 

[pnewton]

Lutfy,

There are a lot of kooks on this thread.

There is no need for name-calling. His post on this did allow for a spiritual connection with the Church, under a limited set of circumstances. One is free to think that such invincible ignorace is very rare. It is an acceptable position and not in the least kooky.

 

[ServantofMary]

Over and over again I see comments that say that before Vatican II the Church taught this, but after Vatican II it now teaches something different. Reading through this thread proves to me that Vatican II truly was a break with the Traditional teachings of the Catholic Church that had been handed down from the apostles.

 

[pnewton]

There isn’t any. This is something devised by men in the Church. However, Jesus tells us our true path to salvation, if you believe what is written in the Bible.

That is a Lutheran opininon. As a Catholic that does believe the Bible, we believe all that’s there including the part about the Holy Spirit guiding us in all things, the Church being the Pillar of Truth and that Jesus passed on authority for His sheep to Peter. I only mention this because I think what you have posted is a false dichotomy between that devised of Man and that which is in the Bible.

We who are Catholic obviously accept the Biblical position of the Catholic Church.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Lief Erikson:

Ultima, I think you are accidentally undermining the sovereignty of God when you talk about people always being obligated to adhere to the truth revealed to their minds by men, as though God is obligated to reveal His truth to people through us, simply because we choose to spread the head knowledge of it. I think you’re also oversimplifying the soul and understanding.

I’ll try to clarify what I meant when I said God normally uses men to reveal the truth to us, as I think you may have misunderstood me. I don’t deny or even question that God works within all men. When I spoke of God revealing the truth, I was speaking of truth in the form of a proposition, such as a doctrine. For example, it would be extremely rare for God to reveal directly to a person on a desert Island that He is three Persons, that the second Person became man, and that we are required to eat the flesh and drink the blood of God-made-man. Such doctrinal propositions enter the mind either by hearing (by the preaching of a missionary, for example) or else by reading. Once the proposition has entered the person’s mind, then the Holy Ghost works within to help the person accept the truth.

I agree with everything you wrote in your reply to me. The only area of disagreement is on the subject of invincible ignorance. My position is that once the proposition (the doctrine) has been made known to the person (and the person understands what is being proposed) they are no longer invincibly ignorant of it. If I understand your position, you would say that a person would remain in a state of invincible ignorance after the truth was proposed to them, and up to the time that the Holy Ghost began working within them internally by speaking to them and enlightening them to the particular truth. Once the spirit has spoken to them internally they can no longer be considered invincibly ignorant, whereas up to that point they would – even though the proposition was made known to them. I hope that is a fair analysis of your position.

I’m going to reply to this by showing how the mind works and how the Holy Ghost works within man.

When a doctrinal proposition is made known to man (God is three Persons, for example) the proposition enters the mind (the intellect) and then the free will does one of three things: It accepts the truth, rejects the truth, or suspends judgment to allow for further investigation. A person “believes” when the will chooses to accept as true the proposition that the intellect proposes. That’s how the mind and will work together to accept or reject a truth.

Now, you have been talking about the Spirit speaking to the person internally. What you are describing is an effect of “actual grace”. The Protestants refer to it as an “inspiration of the Holy Ghost”. The Catholic Church calls it actual grace. Actual grace does two things: it enlightens the mind and moves the will. When we have one of those “ah ha” moments, it is often an effect of actual grace (inspirations of the Holy Ghost). When the Bible says no one comes to God unless God draws him, the “drawing him” is accomplished by actual grace. All men – both good and bad - receive actual grace, but all do not respond.

Now, after the truth is made known to the intellect, the free will is left with the choice of accepting it or rejecting it. Actual grace works on one side (sometimes very subtly and sometimes in a striking way) to help us accept the truth, and the devil works on the other side. The devil is not able to move the will directly, but he can enlighten the mind to an error (as he did with you in your example). God, on the other hand can both enlighten the mind to the truth and also move the will, which he does through actual grace.
The theological virtue of faith also works on the will. It moves the will (helps the will) to accept the truth that is proposed by the intellect. A person with a strong faith will believe the truth easily. A person with a weak faith will struggle to believe the truth. Both actual grace and the virtue of faith help move the will to accept the truth. Actual grace differs in that it also enlightens the mind.

With this in mind, it seems as though you are saying a person remains invincibly ignorant until God sends him an actual grace – a powerful one - that he rejects. But this is not correct. Actual grace only helps the will to accept it after it has been proposed. Once the truth is made known to the intellect, a person can no longer be considered ignorant of it.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Over and over again I see comments that say that before Vatican II the Church taught this, but after Vatican II it now teaches something different. Reading through this thread proves to me that Vatican II truly was a break with the Traditional teachings of the Catholic Church that had been handed down from the apostles.

Teachings about baptism by desire and blood, and invincible ignorance, long predate Vatican II. See Thomas Aquinas for the first two, and Pius IX for the last.

Some Early Church Fathers on the matter.

First, Baptism by Blood.

Cyprian

“[Catechumens who suffer martyrdom] are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord said that he had another baptism with which he himself was to be baptized [Luke 12:50]” (ibid., 72[73]:22).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom.
. . . For the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism, saying, ‘Can you drink the cup which I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized [Mark 10:38]?’ Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men [1 Cor. 4:9]” (Catechetical Lectures 3:10 [A.D. 350]).

And Baptism by Desire:

Ambrose of Milan

“But I hear you lamenting because he [the Emperor Valentinian] had not received the sacraments of baptism. Tell me, what else could we have, except the will to it, the asking for it? He too had just now this desire, and after he came into Italy it was begun, and a short time ago he signified that he wished to be baptized by me. Did he, then, not have the grace which he desired? Did he not have what he eagerly sought? Certainly, because he sought it, he received it. What else does it mean: ‘Whatever just man shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest [Wis. 4:7]’?” (Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian [A.D. 392]).

Augustine

“That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, ‘Today you shall be with me in paradise’ [Luke 23:43]. Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart * if, perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:22:29 [A.D. 400]).

Invincible Ignorance

Pius IX. Not an Early Church Father, but the only clear official teaching on the matter I know of right now before Vatican II.

Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: “For it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God.”

March 17, 1856, Pius IX wrote, “There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord (St. Cyprian, Epistle 43), outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church (ibid, On the Unity of the Catholic Church). … Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.”*

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Ultima,

Unfortunately, you are wrong.

In my first post, which you were unable to undersand, I quoted St. Thomas saying the exact same thing I did. Who would you suggest we beleive? You, or St. Thomas?

yosupman:

Common baptism implies that the baptism of other christians not fully united with the Catholic Church are truly valid.

I didn’t say they weren’t. No offense, but I really question if you are at a level where you can engage in these conversations.

yosupman:

What you are saying about a baptism having “character”, but not grace is simply hogwash.

Once again, I quote Saint Thomas Aquinas as my authority. There is no theologian in the history of the Church with more authority than St. Thomas Aquinas. The quote came from the Summa. The Summa was placed on the altar next to the Bible during the Council of Trent.
yospuman:

A baptism is only a baptism if the conditions are met to be an actual baptism. If a baptism of a heretic is true baptism, which means the heretic is open to the minimal requirements of faith, and receives baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity, then its a baptism. If not, its called pouring water on the head, not baptism.

I quoted St. Thomas as my authority. Please provide a quote to support your position.

yosupman:

YOU CANNOT HAVE A VALID BAPTISM THAT DOES NOT CONFER GRACE!!! Its not a baptism. Again, its called a shower.

Did you just make that up? If not, please provide the quote showing where you learned it.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Ultima Ratio loves to make it complicated. That’s because he’s actually out of communion with the church on this topic, and is teaching heresy himself. That’s right, Ultima Ratio is teaching the doctrine of Father Feeny, a heretic.

Please show where I am in agreement with Fr. Freeney. Truth be told, I disagree with Fr Feeney, even though Rome allows his followers to hold to his position.

And be sure to notice yo 'sup man (I finally figured out what your user name means) that I provide authoritative quote from my positions. It would add to your credibility if you did the same.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

As Lumen Gentium, which I just brought up, says, baptism is the doorway into the Church. If you’re baptized, you are in the Church, though your unity with her may be incomplete.

Although it is true that baptism is the doorway to the Church, it is not true that all baptized are members of the Church. Heretic, schismatic, and apostates are baptized persons, yet they are outside the Church. An excommunicated person is also baptized, but no longer a member of the Church. Heretics, schismatics, apostates and excommunicated persons are all baptized, yet they are all outside the Church.

Catechism of Pius X:

11 Q:** Who are they who are outside the true Church? **

A: Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates, schismatics, and the excommunicated. …

**14 Q: Who are heretics? **

A: Heretics are those of the baptized who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians, and the various sects of Protestants.

**15 Q: Who are apostates? **

A: Apostates are those who abjure, or by some external act, deny the Catholic faith which they previously professed.

**16 Q: Who are schismatics? **

A: Schismatics are those Christians who, while not explicitly denying any dogma, yet voluntarily separate themselves from the Church of Jesus Christ, that is, from their lawful pastors.

**17 Q: Who are the excommunicated? **

A: The excommunicated are those who, because of grievous transgressions, are struck with excommunication by the Pope or their Bishop, and consequently are cut off as unworthy from the body of the Church, which, however, hopes for and desires their conversion.

 

[HisWill777]

That is a Lutheran opininon. As a Catholic that does believe the Bible, we believe all that’s there including the part about the Holy Spirit guiding us in all things, the Church being the Pillar of Truth and that Jesus passed on authority for His sheep to Peter. I only mention this because I think what you have posted is a false dichotomy between that devised of Man and that which is in the Bible.

We who are Catholic obviously accept the Biblical position of the Catholic Church.

But I don’t believe it is an opinion. I think my statement “Jesus tells us our true path to salvation, if you believe what is written in the Bible” is indisputable fact based on the Bible. If you believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, you must believe what He tells us over and over. This isn’t a Lutheran thing, its Christian. I believe in Christ and what He taught.

Further the post earlier quotes the Lumen Gentium, saying “In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church”. This is an extrapolation of Jesus’ statements in Scripture. Why would He entrust man to do such a thing?? If He wanted to name membership in the Church as a requirement for salvation, I’m SURE he would have explicitly stated it over and over and over again in Scripture to ensure all Christians understood what He was saying. I love the Church and it’s people, but I really don’t know how that last statement can be disputed.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I’ll try to clarify what I meant when I said God normally uses men to reveal the truth to us, as I think you may have misunderstood me. I don’t deny or even question that God works within all men. When I spoke of God revealing the truth, I was speaking of truth in the form of a proposition, such as a doctrine. For example, it would be extremely rare for God to reveal directly to a person on a desert Island that He is three Persons, that the second Person became man, and that we are required to eat the flesh and drink the blood of God-made-man. Such doctrinal propositions enter the mind either by hearing (by the preaching of a missionary, for example) or else by reading. Once the proposition has entered the person’s mind, then the Holy Ghost works within to help the person accept the truth.

Agreed. Though I don’t know that He always tries to get the person to accept these truths, even when the message comes through a bad messenger. He isn’t obligated to speak to people through each so-called Catholic who shoots his mouth off. I’ll elaborate on that below.
Ultima Ratio:

I agree with everything you wrote in your reply to me. The only area of disagreement is on the subject of invincible ignorance. My position is that once the proposition (the doctrine) has been made known to the person (and the person understands what is being proposed) they are no longer invincibly ignorant of it. If I understand your position, you would say that a person would remain in a state of invincible ignorance after the truth was proposed to them, and up to the time that the Holy Ghost began working within them internally by speaking to them and enlightening them to the particular truth. Once the spirit has spoken to them internally they can no longer be considered invincibly ignorant, whereas up to that point they would – even though the proposition was made known to them. I hope that is a fair analysis of your position.

Seems fair .
Ultima Ratio:

I’m going to reply to this by showing how the mind works and how the Holy Ghost works within man.

When a doctrinal proposition is made known to man (God is three Persons, for example) the proposition enters the mind (the intellect) and then the free will does one of three things: It accepts the truth, rejects the truth, or suspends judgment to allow for further investigation.

I would propose a fourth option, that the truth simply passes the person by. You might call this a variant of your “reject the truth” option, but I don’t think that’s fair. The mind is so complex, with so many different influences on it, people’s training, assumptions, backgrounds, experiences, emotional moods at the moment they’re hearing the message, and the “message” itself can be presented badly or well depending on the messenger or the timing or the arguments used to support it, or so many other factors.

People will also often hear a foreign idea, a counter argument will occur to them and they won’t give the issue a second thought, whether the foreign idea is true or false. I used to study pro-racism arguments for a couple university presentations, and I didn’t bother to research the counter-arguments. I still don’t know what the counter-arguments are to some impressive presentations of White Power beliefs I read through, but I utterly discard them anyway. That’s how complex the human mind can be. I read a well presented position and then dismiss it because I simply don’t believe in it. It’s no more than a well presented position for me because the Holy Spirit isn’t speaking to me in that presentation. I can imagine people doing the same with Catholic doctrines, and dismissing them because of a great host of reasons, but the Holy Spirit may not have actually called them to these truths. When the Holy Spirit calls, we are always obligated to respond to His voice, no matter how, where or through whom it is coming to us.

With so much going on in human minds, so many differences from person to person and situation to situation, I don’t think it’s possible to jam onto invincible ignorance a one size fits all explanation that says any good presentation of Catholic truth, understood by listeners, will break through invincible ignorance. That kind of interpretation might make Catholic apologists, skilled with rhetoric, feel good about themselves and feel themselves able to look down on people who reject their words. But it doesn’t seem to fit the realities of the human soul or the world we live in, and I don’t think it is joined with the spirit of Vatican II’s teachings.

Continued in the next post.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Ultima Ratio:

A person “believes” when the will chooses to accept as true the proposition that the intellect proposes. That’s how the mind and will work together to accept or reject a truth.

Agreed.
Ultima Ratio:

Now, you have been talking about the Spirit speaking to the person internally. What you are describing is an effect of “actual grace”. The Protestants refer to it as an “inspiration of the Holy Ghost”. The Catholic Church calls it actual grace. Actual grace does two things: it enlightens the mind and moves the will. When we have one of those “ah ha” moments, it is often an effect of actual grace (inspirations of the Holy Ghost). When the Bible says no one comes to God unless God draws him, the “drawing him” is accomplished by actual grace. All men – both good and bad - receive actual grace, but all do not respond.

I would say people are judged based on whether they have accepted the actual grace God gives them or not, then.
Ultima Ratio:

Now, after the truth is made known to the intellect, the free will is left with the choice of accepting it or rejecting it. Actual grace works on one side (sometimes very subtly and sometimes in a striking way) to help us accept the truth, and the devil works on the other side. The devil is not able to move the will directly, but he can enlighten the mind to an error (as he did with you in your example). God, on the other hand can both enlighten the mind to the truth and also move the will, which he does through actual grace.

Part of the point I’m trying to make is that how much of the truth is made known to the intellect has an impact on culpability, the background of the person receiving the truth, his or her life experiences, training, etc., make an impact on culpability, and whether the truth is presented by a nasty person or in a nasty way or at a bad time of day makes a difference on culpability, etc. etc. All these things impact how people respond and whether they give what you say a second thought. Your perspective seems to assume that the truth is given in a vacuum and everyone has the same background and receptivity, etc. There are so many things that make a difference.

If some Protestant has just lost a loved one and is grieving for her mother, and then an arrogant Catholic comes to the door trying to spread the faith and tells her, "Outside of the Church is no salvation and without having received the sacraments, your mother has very little chance of receiving salvation.

“You have deviated from Peter and are a heretic. You need to accept the teachings of the Pope or you’re at great risk of being burned forever in Hell. You are living in many divisions from Christ because of your heresies, and I can prove that from these Early Church Fathers and Scripture passages . . .” Such a presentation of Catholicism would not come from God but from the Devil. Having true words (not that I’m saying the “very little chance” bit is necessarily true) and even being able to prove them effectively doesn’t necessarily mean anything. What people are obligated to respond to is what the Holy Spirit shows them, not what man does.
Ultima Ratio:

The theological virtue of faith also works on the will. It moves the will (helps the will) to accept the truth that is proposed by the intellect. A person with a strong faith will believe the truth easily. A person with a weak faith will struggle to believe the truth. Both actual grace and the virtue of faith help move the will to accept the truth. Actual grace differs in that it also enlightens the mind.

Agreed. Though a couple bits of what you said here again make me think of what I was saying, that you seem to be assuming people receive the truth in a vacuum and with a common background leading to the point where they do hear the truth.
Ultima Ratio:

With this in mind, it seems as though you are saying a person remains invincibly ignorant until God sends him an actual grace – a powerful one - that he rejects. But this is not correct. Actual grace only helps the will to accept it after it has been proposed. Once the truth is made known to the intellect, a person can no longer be considered ignorant of it.

I disagree. While they might have “head knowledge” of the truth they might still be spiritually ignorant of it, and so invincibly ignorant of it. Where the heart goes, the mind will follow.

Here’s a passage that seems to me to reflect what I’m talking about.

Mark 7:20-23

20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ 21For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’ "

What comes out of the heart, according to Jesus, is what makes a man unclean. Evil thoughts such as heresies in the heart, because the heart is the throne from which souls are ruled. Not the mind. It is not on what is proposed to the mind that people are judged, but on what is proposed to the heart. As Jesus said, what makes people unclean are evil thoughts from the heart. And the Holy Spirit is the only one who can reach people’s hearts, not us. Therefore anyone who ends up in Hell has been found guilty of rejecting the words of the Holy Spirit, not of rejecting the words of man.

In response to another part of what you said, I’m not saying the actual grace certainly has to be powerful for people to be culpable for rejecting it. I believe people are guilty whenever they reject the movements of the Spirit in their hearts or minds, whether the Spirit does much or little.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

But I don’t believe it is an opinion. I think my statement “Jesus tells us our true path to salvation, if you believe what is written in the Bible” is indisputable fact based on the Bible. If you believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, you must believe what He tells us over and over. This isn’t a Lutheran thing, its Christian. I believe in Christ and what He taught.

Further the post earlier quotes the Lumen Gentium, saying “In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church”. This is an extrapolation of Jesus’ statements in Scripture. Why would He entrust man to do such a thing?? If He wanted to name membership in the Church as a requirement for salvation, I’m SURE he would have explicitly stated it over and over and over again in Scripture to ensure all Christians understood what He was saying. I love the Church and it’s people, but I really don’t know how that last statement can be disputed.

I already explained to you in an earlier post, which you said you really liked, how this doctrine is present in the Scripture. But Jesus already had this truth infallibly and explicitly revealed in Sacred Tradition, and in the infallible decrees of the sacred councils according to which the Church is governed, so why would He have to infallibly and explicitly reveal it in Sacred Scripture too? He had already made that truth perfectly plain to the whole world. Back when people all believed Jesus’ infallible Word revealed in the Magesterium and Tradition – throughout the whole history of the Church before the Protestant Reformation – this would not have been an issue! It’s only become an issue now that people have changed the ancient meaning of Christianity to suit their own beliefs.

 

[pnewton]

But I don’t believe it is an opinion. I think my statement “Jesus tells us our true path to salvation, if you believe what is written in the Bible” is indisputable fact based on the Bible. If you believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, you must believe what He tells us over and over.

As do I. I said nothing to the contrary.

This is an extrapolation of Jesus’ statements in Scripture. Why would He entrust man to do such a thing?? He didn’t. He trusted the Holy Spirit. Yes,he used man. I would like to point out that all of divine revelation does this. Moses, the Prophets the Evangelists.

What did Jesus write? Nothing. He entrusted the message of salvation first to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. After that, we have the great exposition of the Gospel by St. Paul. How rich a a resource and how much greater an understanding of God we find in those epistles, entrusted to the hand of a man.

I agree with what you said about membership, by the way, as does the Catholic Church.

 

[HisWill777]

I already explained to you in an earlier post, which you said you really liked, how this doctrine is present in the Scripture. But Jesus already had this truth infallibly and explicitly revealed in Sacred Tradition, and in the infallible decrees of the sacred councils according to which the Church is governed, so why would He have to infallibly and explicitly reveal it in Sacred Scripture too? He had already made that truth perfectly plain to the whole world. Back when people all believed Jesus’ infallible Word revealed in the Magesterium and Tradition – throughout the whole history of the Church before the Protestant Reformation – this would not have been an issue! It’s only become an issue now that people have changed the ancient meaning of Christianity to suit their own beliefs.

I DID like your earlier post, that doesn’t mean I don’t struggle with these questions. Because I state my beliefs doesn’t mean I’m not open to what you or others have to offer. Part of my problem is I read how men ruined things for His Chosen people many times in the OT, so why can’t it happen again? I realize many Catholics refer to the “gates of Hell won’t overcome it”, but I don’t see where that guarantees anything. Maybe God will cleanse the Church and put new people in charge, who knows? There are many things He could do and still leave the Church standing in some form. We should be wary of thinking anything is guaranteed.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

"Ultima Ratio:

Please show where I am in agreement with Fr. Freeney. Truth be told, I disagree with Fr Feeney, even though Rome allows his followers to hold to his position.

I don’t think Rome does allow anyone to hold that position. Fr. Feeney rejected the possibility of salvation for anyone who isn’t explicitly within the visible Catholic Church. However, at the Council of Trent, Baptism of Desire was dogmatically defined.

Translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum
gratiae … post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis AUT EIUS
VOTO fieri not potest. [The translation from that state in which man is born
a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace … cannot, since the
promulgation of the gospel, be effected except through the laver of
regeneration OR ITS DESIRE.] (Sessio Sexta de Iustificatione, Caput IV:
Insinuatur Descriptio Iustificationis Impii, et Modus Eius in Statu Gratiae)

De Fide. Therefore those who reject Baptism by Desire are heretics.

Although it is true that baptism is the doorway to the Church, it is not true that all baptized are members of the Church. Heretic, schismatic, and apostates are baptized persons, yet they are outside the Church.

This depends on how you’re defining what it means to be in the Church. I see you’re defining it as Pius X was, as “full communion.”

Here’s from our present Catechism:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

The non-Catholic Christians are in a partial communion with the Catholic Church. As the Catechism says, “The baptized have ‘put on Christ.’”

CCC 1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: “Therefore . . . we are members one of another.”[71] Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.”[72]

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”[80] “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.”[81]

Those who are baptized deserve the name Christian and are members of the Body of Christ, or the Church. This Catechism isn’t negating our holy Pius X’s. It agrees with him as far as concepts go but is using different language. Whereas Pius X only described as members of the Church those who are in full communion, he did not deny that there is partial communion with many outside the Church. The Catechism today is using language differently but is talking about the same ideas. We all agree that Protestants aren’t in full communion, but the language of the present Catechism might suggest they are in the Church through baptism but not fully in it because they lack the fullness of faith and submission. If they weren’t members of the Body of Christ, I don’t see how Pope Benedict XVI could talk about the “wounds” their disunity rends in the Body.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I DID like your earlier post, that doesn’t mean I don’t struggle with these questions. Because I state my beliefs doesn’t mean I’m not open to what you or others have to offer.

Part of my problem is I read how men ruined things for His Chosen people many times in the OT, so why can’t it happen again?

Because now mankind has “put on Christ.” I’ll elaborate on what that means below.

I realize many Catholics refer to the “gates of Hell won’t overcome it”, but I don’t see where that guarantees anything. Maybe God will cleanse the Church and put new people in charge, who knows? There are many things He could do and still leave the Church standing in some form. We should be wary of thinking anything is guaranteed.

You know, I recommend thinking about this in the same way as thinking about “outside the Church is no salvation,” thinking about it in terms of the unity between Christ and His Church. Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.” Because He and His Body are one, the Church too is the “way, the truth and the life.” Because Christ is the Truth, His Body will never fall into error. Because He is the Way, His Body will never stop being the Way. Because He is the Life, the Church will never stop filling its members with His Life through the sacraments, which bring perfect unity with Christ to all devout souls.

Truly, Jesus is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. The Foundation is the deepest part of something. It cannot be riven. It cannot fall into error without everything built on it becoming unstable. As Jesus said in Luke 6:47-49, the one who builds on His words is on a firm foundation. Jesus, the Word of God, is infallible, Truth itself, the deepest Foundation.

The Church, through its unity with Jesus, is also the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. 1 Timothy 3:15 says, “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” The foundation, the deepest part of the house, the part that cannot be riven without everything being rendered untrustworthy.

The Gates of Hell strove against Jesus. Satan tempted Him in the desert, tried to sway Him from His mission as the Way, Truth and Life for humanity, but Satan could not resist Him. Satan tempted Him again at Gethsemane, but in every trial, Jesus triumphed. In the same way, His Body always has and always will triumph, because it is one with the Head and derives its life and nature from its Head. As Galatians 3:27 says, “for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” We are clothed in Christ, filled with Christ, living the life of Christ as the fruit lives off the vine.

Individual members of the Body can fail, just as Jesus took blows to His Body during His life on Earth, as people tore His Flesh in the Passion and beat and buffeted Him in the town square. But Jesus Himself triumphed. Consequently the Church will triumph. Jesus never failed. Consequently the Church will never fail. Its members might, just as the members of Jesus’ Body were torn off as His Flesh was lacerated for our sake, but it itself must survive. The Church must survive, must always be true, always pure and always godly as Christ was.

The Gates of Hell strove against Jesus and failed. They have striven against the Church again and again for 2,000 years and always have failed, and they always will. They will test the Church’s character and mission and teachings again and again and will fail, as they failed against Christ.

The unity of Christ and His Body ensures His Body is reliable, trustworthy, and glorious. It is the “household of God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” Consequently it will never, when protected in the charism of infallibility, teach its members anything false. You can trust the Church Christ founded because it is one with Him.

 

[Jacafamala]

The homily did not mention it, though. I was referring back to the the OP and the specific topic. I was just trying to answer the specific question of why people post on invincible ignorance. As to Ultimate Ratios post, his understanding of such an unlikely exception is an acceptable position, but not the only one. I prefer the Churchs position presented in the Catechism, since my understanding is so limited in comparison to the wisdom of the Church.

It’s important to say that non-Catholics who are saved get saved despite of their religion, not because of it. Any truth that their Church holds actually comes from the Holy Catholic Church. Whatever non-Catholic doctrines their religion holds are all false.

Anyway, it’s more prudent for Catholics to have the attitude of erring on the side of caution with regard to EENS by assuming that invincible ignorance is very unlikely in most instances. We ought to be willing to do all we can to convert as many as possible to Catholicism through evangelization, as opposed to pandering to other world religions through false ecumenism. Because even if individuals are invincibly ignorant, mortal sin can only be forgiven through the Sacrament of Confession, for which one needs to be a Catholic or else by perfect contrition, which is very rare. So, it’s safer to convey the urgency for conversion to these non-Catholics. I’d like to see our hierarchy do more of this, instead of all the public relations “I’m okay, you’re okay” Assisi inter-religious prayer service type stuff that goes on today.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Ultima,

Unfortunately, you are wrong. … What you are saying about a baptism having “character”, but not grace is simply hogwash. A baptism is only a baptism if the conditions are met to be an actual baptism. If a baptism of a heretic is true baptism, which means the heretic is open to the minimal requirements of faith, and receives baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity, then its a baptism. If not, its called pouring water on the head, not baptism.

YOU CANNOT HAVE A VALID BAPTISM THAT DOES NOT CONFER GRACE!!! Its not a baptism. Again, its called a shower.

The problem with you Ultima, is that you drink the Jim Jones kool-aid of the extreme tradtionalists. The “Ultima” authority for you is YOU. The ultimate authority for me is the living magiterium. Your problem is you interpret past church teaching in line with the Jim Jones Kool-aid drinkin’ tradtionalists. I interpret the past church teaching in line with the LIVING magisterium of today.

So, it is your position that a valid baptism always confers sanctifying grace? Baptism does not sometimes only imprint the character? The following is from the catechism of Pius X:

14 **Q: When the person who is being baptized is an adult, what dispositions should he have? **

A: An adult who is being baptized, besides faith, should have at least imperfect contrition for the mortal sins he may have committed.

**15 Q: If an adult in mortal sin was baptized without such sorrow, what would he receive? **

A: If an adult was baptized in mortal sin without such sorrow he would receive the character of Baptism, but not the remission of his sins nor sanctifying grace. And these two effects would be suspended, until the obstacle is removed by perfect contrition or by the sacrament of Penance.

Now, are you going to ignore this quote and attempt to attack me personally (your usual defense), or will you have the humility to concede that you didn’t know what you were talking about?