A
- Status
I
Iotaunum
Guest
Ok, I thought that quote from Cardinal Ratzinger was “too good to be true” as it were, but I do find that Cardinal Ratzinger in his books frequently spoke from one side and then the other leading some to denounce him as a “liberal” while others rebuked him for his “ultra orthodoxy” - so I almost believed it! That aside, the more I think about it, I think it would be correct to say that holding a rigorist position would not be heresy since it does not contradict or deny any defined dogma. However, it would go against a mass of Church fathers, saints, doctors and theologians. Therefore, I hold baptism of desire and blood as being highly probable, theologically speaking. This leads me to wonder; what do you think the theological note of this doctrine is? Saint Alphonsus Liguori wrote that it was de fide, others that it was fidei proxima. I am inclined to say with others that it may be Theologically certain. This is my opinion - I’d like to hear what others think.
Also, I think what has been confusing me is that there has been a whole lot of liberal books and other writings on the subject which make the dogmatic truth a meaningless formula, and on the other hand those publications which take Fr Feeney’s position. I was overwhelmed by liberal distortions of the dogma making it say “outside the church there is no salvation except those outside since they don’t know”. I am tired and saddended by this attitude among both the laity and the clergy. The Church has always taught that ignorance does not save. In fact, it neither saves nor damns to be accurate. Say there is a pagan in a land which has not seen any missionaries - that pagan would not be held accountable for sins against the faith due to his ignorance, but as St Paul alludes to in Galations he would still be capable of sin when the natural law and his conscience is not followed. Thus, if he killed someone or committed another mortal sin then he will not be able to use ignorance as an excuse on the Last Day when God judges. However, the liberals would have his ignorance excuse him from all sin, not just sin against the faith meaning effectively that as long as he “was a good person” ( according to their standard) he will go to Heaven no matter about mortal sin. It saddens me when this attitude means parents see their children abandon the faith completely and barely say a word to them because they are “a good person” and they are “probably a lot better than some who go to Mass”.
Another related question is: What truths are necessary for salvation? Is it necessary by necessity of means to believe in Christ, the Trinity or just a creator God who rewards and punishes?
Also, I think what has been confusing me is that there has been a whole lot of liberal books and other writings on the subject which make the dogmatic truth a meaningless formula, and on the other hand those publications which take Fr Feeney’s position. I was overwhelmed by liberal distortions of the dogma making it say “outside the church there is no salvation except those outside since they don’t know”. I am tired and saddended by this attitude among both the laity and the clergy. The Church has always taught that ignorance does not save. In fact, it neither saves nor damns to be accurate. Say there is a pagan in a land which has not seen any missionaries - that pagan would not be held accountable for sins against the faith due to his ignorance, but as St Paul alludes to in Galations he would still be capable of sin when the natural law and his conscience is not followed. Thus, if he killed someone or committed another mortal sin then he will not be able to use ignorance as an excuse on the Last Day when God judges. However, the liberals would have his ignorance excuse him from all sin, not just sin against the faith meaning effectively that as long as he “was a good person” ( according to their standard) he will go to Heaven no matter about mortal sin. It saddens me when this attitude means parents see their children abandon the faith completely and barely say a word to them because they are “a good person” and they are “probably a lot better than some who go to Mass”.
Another related question is: What truths are necessary for salvation? Is it necessary by necessity of means to believe in Christ, the Trinity or just a creator God who rewards and punishes?
S
Sirach2
Guest
That is so true, and it is documented in other places of scripture, like the separation of sheeps and goats on the last day, and Rev. 22:12 where God will render to each person according to his deeds. I think so often about the innate sense of wrongdoing even in a toddler that hasn’t reached the age of reason. It amazes me that they know full well how to sneak, how to lie, how to disobey. It is written all over their little faces when they are caught red-handed.
I haven’t run into this liberal thinking very often. Most of the time, it is the ultra-rigorous condemnation and judgment coming from those who haven’t the slightest concern for the Mercy of God toward his children. Jonah was one of those who complained angrily when God relented in punishing the Ninivites. God answered, “And should I not be concerned over Ninive, the great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot distinguish their right hand from their left, not to mention the many cattle?”
Interesting subject, Iota…
I think it is based on Romans 2:14-15, the following of the natural law written in the heart of every man, that if even if he knows nothing of God, but follows his conscience to the best of his ability, God will attribute it to him as justification for salvation. Many times I am in awe of the promise to Abraham, that his seed would be as great as the sands on the shore. If it is impossible to count the huge volume of individual pieces in just a cup of sand, how much more in entire beaches, all over the world. That’s a WHOLE LOTTA seed in them thar’ sands!
A
At_Trent
Guest
hmm, I’ll have to refrain from using it then. Thanks for the heads up.
I
Iotaunum
Guest
Well you should be thankful that you are surrounded by those types of Catholics, for where I am I am overwhelmed by a vast majority of Catholics, laity and clergy, who adopt this erroneous idea. I do not encounter the ultra-rigorist type Catholic very often, but if i was to chose I would rather they believe too rigorously than deny it altogether, at least implicitly. There is error on both sides no doubt.
I think what you are saying here is open to interpretation both ways. There can be no doubt that God gives sufficient graces to all to be saved since He wishes the salvation of all men. At the same time, it is impossible to be good without the grace of God. Without the grace of of God no one can avoid all mortal sins and be good. Worshiping idols and false gods, for example, is against the moral law. When people say to me, because I defend the dogma and its traditional interpretation; “* you are saying that every protestant is going to Hell”* I have to say *“what do you mean by protestant?” *Sure, no true protestant can be saved in his man made sect, however take one who was brought up protestant and is taught that “once saved, always saved” - “no sin can damn you, the blood of Christ saves you - only lack of faith will damn you” etc. His conscience will surely tell him that it is wrong and sinful to beat his wife, or steal, or murder etc. Thus, if he follows the natural law and his conscience he will reject this fallacy. He can implicitly be Catholic since he was baptised and grace and his conscience has made him reject the false doctirne he was taught. Thus, he is not saved a protestant, but a Catholic - so long as he does not reject those divinley revealed doctrines which grace has made known to him.
He would still have a duty to follow his conscience and embrace the truth as he is aware of it. Thus, he is still obligated to become a formal member of the Church. If he is slothful in seeking the truth, this will not excuse him on the Last Day, nor if he is aware of the truth and refuses to follow or investigate further, his ignorance will not excuse him either.
That being said, I think the biggest problem is those who make the exception greater than the rule, making it no rule at all. They feel that almost all men, (if not all) will be saved, and even more non-Catholics than Catholics since they are much more numerous, forgetting the words of our Lord:
Matthew 7:14 - “How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!”
and the proposition condemned by Pope Pius IX:
“We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ.”
I think the greatest error is on the liberal side.
S
Sirach2
Guest
It is important to remember that, unlike Catholics who have the advantage of “sanctifying grace” through reception of the sacraments, God can and does bestow “actual graces” on noncatholics to enable them to avoid sin. However, while we are blessed to be able to sail, those who live by actual grace alone will have to **row - **which is more difficult - but not impossible. From the Catechism:
2024. God also acts through many actual graces, to be distinguished from habitual grace which is permanent in us.
2000. Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.
The Church recognizes that those born into these other religions were taught from childhood that their faith is the true religion. Therefore, they have no reason to search further for truth. We can only pray for them, bestow our words of truth, and trust the Holy Spirit to complete the work of convicting their hearts. Sometimes others will build on our words, so it is best not to badger and proselytize, but humbly plant those seeds as God leads us, always respecting their absolute freedom as endowed by the Church.
Kindly note that this same Pope Pius IX also stated in QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE:
Sometimes folks take a papal statement out of context, and fail to examine all of the other teachings made by him. We need to be careful there.
I
Iotaunum
Guest
I agree - there is no doubt that God can and does bestow graces on those who are sincere and seek them from him. If a pagan were to pray in his heart about the truth etc, God may well give him the graces he needs to see the truth and become a member of the Church, as has happened many times and has been recorded by the Saints and Fathers. Missionaries were often led against their own plans by the Holy Ghost becuase of a pagan, whom God gave the grace to, wanted to recieve the truth and were thus baptized before their death. God does not give grace only to the baptized, otherwise there would be few conversions.
I agree, but I would also reiterate my point about the grace given by God being sufficient for all men to come to the knowledge of the Truth - as the example of the protestant who was taught Sola Fide and yet the natural law, his conscience and the grace of God tells him that it is wrong to commit mortal sin and that consequences result as he offends God. One who acts on a bad conscience or dulls it culpably has no excuse - whether Catholic or not.
I know what you are saying and I try my best to read the documents in their entirety and in their historical context. Yes, it is possible and up to God that someone may be given the grace to be saved even if they are not a formal member of the Church. However, Pope Pius IX was condemning the idea that it is a common occurance and that we should have “at least good hope” that non catholics will be saved. Many liberals today would condemn the Pope for his condemnation, saying that we can and MUST have “at least good hope” that non catholics will be saved. The Pope was not precluding their salvation, but rather the idea that there is good hope of it occurring:Kindly note that this same Pope Pius IX also stated in QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE:
Sometimes folks take a papal statement out of context, and fail to examine all of the other teachings made by him. We need to be careful there.
“We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ.” - Condemed (Pope Pius IX)
It is hard enough to be saved inside the Church, so those outside it face even greater difficulty, which is why we must continue to pray and preach the Gospel to all creatures. It is, after all, their eternal souls which are at stake, so what may seem to some to be politically incorrect or “rocking the boat” is infact an act of great charity towards our neighbours. This is attested to by the extreme efforts the missionaries went through to bring people into the Church, the necessity still exists today, and in some ways the world is more corrupt.
V
valentino
Guest
You bring up some good questions.as to no.2)I have no clear answer but IMO it has developed as man has tried to understand God/s gospel message more 3)This is still just my opinion.All people who have the grace to believe in Jesus must obey Jesus’s teaching to the best of their abilities with the help of the Church’s guideance.4)I think there ae few who have invincible ignorance.5)All Catholics are sinners as well as allnon Cathholics.Whats a mortal sin to the Catholic may not be so to the non Catholic.Only God can judge as to the severity of one.s sin.6)Anybody who says its enough is in trouble in my view.God says that we are to be as perfect as our heavenly Father.So in reality no one can do enough. IOTAUNAM
- Status