I
Iotaunum
Guest
OK I know I am touching on a hot topic here and I am tired of the predictable debate from all sides on the issue of salvation as much as anyone, however I would like some opinions from everyone on this issue. I have lost count of the books and quotations I have read on this issue and I am still far from clear about it. I know that the Church is necessary for Salvation and I believe it so strongly that I am sure those who I speak to think that it is my opinion that every non-Catholic since the time of Christ is burning in Hell – which is not my belief at all. Although this issue has been discussed in various forms ad nauseum, I would like to try and clarify the Church’s teaching for my own sake.I have read a lot of books concerning the issue written in different centuries/time periods. The more books I collect and the more I read, the more contradictions I see, and not only among the various books but even in the same books themselves.
I avoid all modern books on the subject not because I think there are no good writers who are orthodox in their faith but the fact that the majority seem to be littered with views held as erroneous traditionally. I pick up a book written in the 1920’s by reputable theologians teaching in the Gregorian and recommended by a Cardinal soon-to-be Pope and other respected clergymen which holds as “rejected by all theologians” certain views on Salvation which are explicitly taught by “high up” authorities ( I will not name names) today. This is what causes confusion. I know to reject the liberals and modernists right away to whom the dogma in reality and practice means nothing. Those whom Pius XII said make it a “meaningless formula”. On the other hand, good theologians seemingly backed by other theologians, Fathers, Saints and doctors of the Church etc. Support a different view.
I would like to hear opinions on the following related issues:
1/ some well know Papal pronouncements say: “outside of which which* no one at all* is saved.” ------“it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” ------“*none of those *existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her” ------“No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
For what reason do the Pontiffs emphasise this dogma with words which seem to exclude all exceptions? “…no one AT ALL…” , “…it is ABSOLUTELY necessary for the salvation…” This makes it difficult to rationalise the exceptions permitted by Baptism of desire and blood which I believe in and the Fathers and well known theologians taught. For example if I were to ask a Priest today (an orthodox one) if belonging to the Church is ABSOLUTELY necessary he would most likely say It is necessary but not “absolutely”. - Also, the somewhat recent explanation that the Popes were trying to “scare” people into the faith or somehow overstate and deliberatly not mention exceptions to the rule for fear of indifferntism never appeared as reasonable to me, expecially in light of their choice of words.
2/ How has the doctrine of membership in the Church developed. In the older theology manuals it is often taught that only those who are part of the body are considered members, but more recently there is the teaching that being somehow joined to the “Soul” of the Church constitutes membership.
This also gives rise to a lot of contradiction between the various books/theologians. It seem the difficulty of the necessity of membership has give rise to a theory whereby those who have not actual membership have membership in another sense. I find no grounds in the older teachings/writings for this theory – perhaps I am overlooking them.
3/Is explicit faith necessary for Salvation. I often come across the teaching in the older manuals and writings of the fathers/saints that explicit faith in, for example the Trinity is necessary for salvation. Others say an explicit faith in a God who created the world and rewards and punishes is necessary by a necessity of means.
4/The dogma that those who die in Mortal Sin go to Hell seems to preclude the salvation of the majority of those in invincible ignorance when it is taken that there is no remission of Sins outside the Church.
5/ Is it still held today that it is at least very difficult to be saved while not being a formal member of the Church? Has this view weakened some?
6/ What do you personally say to someone who believes it is enough to be “good” for salvation? People believe this and consider themselves Catholics. Their Children becoming athiests or not practicing the faith will not lead them to Hell because “they are a good person” and only the likes of Hitler is sent to Hell and maybe even he “chose” to go to Heaven instead when God presented him the Choice. For these people the Church is merely an extra help, the sacraments providing extra graces etc. Like those who take the elevator instead of the stairs. This view is what saddens me the most and I feel the lack of clarity on the issue is preventing such errors from being more effectively combatted.
I have written the various positions out on paper in an attempt to reconcile them, but again I see much difference and contradiction.
Lastly, I am not a “feenyite” ( I don’t like that term) but is the position that there are exceptions to EENS an infallible teaching of the Church?
I look forward to hearing replies as I am very interested in this issue in particular and I feel the need to clarify the Church’s position for my own mind. I do not want to start a debate.
I avoid all modern books on the subject not because I think there are no good writers who are orthodox in their faith but the fact that the majority seem to be littered with views held as erroneous traditionally. I pick up a book written in the 1920’s by reputable theologians teaching in the Gregorian and recommended by a Cardinal soon-to-be Pope and other respected clergymen which holds as “rejected by all theologians” certain views on Salvation which are explicitly taught by “high up” authorities ( I will not name names) today. This is what causes confusion. I know to reject the liberals and modernists right away to whom the dogma in reality and practice means nothing. Those whom Pius XII said make it a “meaningless formula”. On the other hand, good theologians seemingly backed by other theologians, Fathers, Saints and doctors of the Church etc. Support a different view.
I would like to hear opinions on the following related issues:
1/ some well know Papal pronouncements say: “outside of which which* no one at all* is saved.” ------“it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” ------“*none of those *existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her” ------“No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
For what reason do the Pontiffs emphasise this dogma with words which seem to exclude all exceptions? “…no one AT ALL…” , “…it is ABSOLUTELY necessary for the salvation…” This makes it difficult to rationalise the exceptions permitted by Baptism of desire and blood which I believe in and the Fathers and well known theologians taught. For example if I were to ask a Priest today (an orthodox one) if belonging to the Church is ABSOLUTELY necessary he would most likely say It is necessary but not “absolutely”. - Also, the somewhat recent explanation that the Popes were trying to “scare” people into the faith or somehow overstate and deliberatly not mention exceptions to the rule for fear of indifferntism never appeared as reasonable to me, expecially in light of their choice of words.
2/ How has the doctrine of membership in the Church developed. In the older theology manuals it is often taught that only those who are part of the body are considered members, but more recently there is the teaching that being somehow joined to the “Soul” of the Church constitutes membership.
This also gives rise to a lot of contradiction between the various books/theologians. It seem the difficulty of the necessity of membership has give rise to a theory whereby those who have not actual membership have membership in another sense. I find no grounds in the older teachings/writings for this theory – perhaps I am overlooking them.
3/Is explicit faith necessary for Salvation. I often come across the teaching in the older manuals and writings of the fathers/saints that explicit faith in, for example the Trinity is necessary for salvation. Others say an explicit faith in a God who created the world and rewards and punishes is necessary by a necessity of means.
4/The dogma that those who die in Mortal Sin go to Hell seems to preclude the salvation of the majority of those in invincible ignorance when it is taken that there is no remission of Sins outside the Church.
5/ Is it still held today that it is at least very difficult to be saved while not being a formal member of the Church? Has this view weakened some?
6/ What do you personally say to someone who believes it is enough to be “good” for salvation? People believe this and consider themselves Catholics. Their Children becoming athiests or not practicing the faith will not lead them to Hell because “they are a good person” and only the likes of Hitler is sent to Hell and maybe even he “chose” to go to Heaven instead when God presented him the Choice. For these people the Church is merely an extra help, the sacraments providing extra graces etc. Like those who take the elevator instead of the stairs. This view is what saddens me the most and I feel the lack of clarity on the issue is preventing such errors from being more effectively combatted.
I have written the various positions out on paper in an attempt to reconcile them, but again I see much difference and contradiction.
Lastly, I am not a “feenyite” ( I don’t like that term) but is the position that there are exceptions to EENS an infallible teaching of the Church?
I look forward to hearing replies as I am very interested in this issue in particular and I feel the need to clarify the Church’s position for my own mind. I do not want to start a debate.
