M
Melchior_1
Guest
Anyone can get into Heaven thanks to God’s mercy. Personally, I’m of the mindset that before we die God asks us “are you in or out?” Being Catholic, the fullness of Truth, makes our answering “yes” easier.
- Status
D
dominic_aquinas
Guest
Well, I’ve got news for you: That statement is an example of indifferentism and latitudinarianism. These have been repeatededly condemned. Also, it is a sin to make presumption on God’s mercy.
Syllabus of Erros Pius IX:
- 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. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
CONDEMNED
M
Melchior_1
Guest
If that’s the case, it’s also a sin to assume people are in Hell.
Reconcile this with Baptism of Desire, please.
C
clem456
Guest
This (bolded) is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
Lumen Gentium has a nice section on this called “On the People of God”. Chapter 2.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
D
dominic_aquinas
Guest
Sure, no problem: The Protestants are already Baptized. Therefore Baptism of Desire would not apply in their case.
It’s not their desire for Baptism that’s keeping them from Heaven. They’ve already been Baptized. It’s that by their actions and beliefs they have put themselves outside the Church and are not able to receive the other sacraments.
The problem they have is this:
Council of Trent:
ANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.
The Protestants believe this and many. many other things defined in the Council of Trent which infallibly puts them outside the Church and thus there is no hope of salvation for them, unless they formally renounce their heretical beliefs and receive the Sacraments.
G
godisgood77
Guest
Nice point and right on… Ratzinger is on record calling Lumen Gentium “a counter Syllabus”…
G
godisgood77
Guest
If you go to the CCC you will see that those that have heard the Gospel and have full knowledge of the Church teachings, but willfully reject are in grave error. Seems like SSPX would fall firmly in to that category.
L
Lormar
Guest
Last night when I was reading the The Liturgical Year by Abbot Gueranger, I came across the following in the entry for St. Fidelis of Sigmarigen and thought about this thread:
J
JReducation
Guest
If he has written, then he has not written in the manner that they demand. This is why they’re saying, “We’re still waiting, but we cannot wait forever.”
This most certainly is true. Some of their priests have made comments that were problematic, comments that did not come from the authority of the SSPX.
This is not a justifiable position. They are not being asked to relinquish truth. They are being commanded to abide by the same rules that the rest of us abide by. To say that they are justified in by a desire to edification casts a very negative life on the hundreds of religious communities, dioceses, societies of apostolic life and secular orders who comply with this order to speak only to the Vatican. Unless you’re saying that the rest of us have no interest in Truth. That’s a very big claim.
Why is this discretion right for us and not for the SSPX? What makes the SSPX the exception to the rule? When did the Church dispense the SSPX? To the best of my knowledge the only order in the Church that is not bound by this rule of silence is the Jesuit Order. This is because this was negotiated by St. Ignatius with the papacy. The papacy has not changed it. The rest of us are bound to speak only to the Church authorities, never to the media and to the laity.
Please help me understand how the SSPX is different and who gave them the dispensation?
If they go into schism they will receive no such welcoming. The Eastern Orthodox are not schismatics. Their ancestors caused the schism. Only their ancestors can be called schismatics. The Church has been very clear on this since Vatican II. The Eastern Orthodox were born into those Churches. They have not broken away from the Catholic Church. Their sacraments are valid and licit. If the SSPX were to go into schism, it would take several generations before the schismatics die out and their children will then be in the same place as are the Orthodox today.
Again, as Pope Benedict stated. Today’s Protetantism is a very different reality from that of the 16th century. Today’s Protestant is born into a faith tradition. He is not breaking away from the Catholic Church. He was never born into it. We’re not speaking about those who leave the Catholic Church to become Protestant. Those folks are in the same situation as the early Protestants.
What the Church says is that because they are born into that tradition, she (the Church) by her authority acknowledges that Christ can and does use them to save those people. But the Church is referring only to those who are born into that faith.
It matters very much. Catholics and Orthodox must make use of the sacraments. We don’t have an option, because the sacraments are available to us. Those who are born into faith communities where the sacrament of Penance is not available to them cannot be expected to make use of it. Remember, the Church has no jurisdiction over those born outside of her boundaries. Even within the Church, we have several codes of law. What binds that Latin Catholic does not necessarily bind the Eastern Catholic and the other way around. Each person is bound by what is available to him or her.
J
JReducation
Guest
Question: Why do you have to start a post with this expression? Do you realize how condescending this sounds to the person on the other side of the screen? This is not the way that we speak to each other when we sit in a room of scholars, theologians, bishops, religious superiors and other well educated people in a formal discussion, unless the individuals know each other very well and have a certain comfort level with each other.
However, succeeding popes have clarified that this is not applicable to those born into other faiths and who sincerely seek God using the means that they have at their disposal. The statement was not meant to be taken as narrowly as we think. This is what the great theologians of our time have told us: Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. They are not arguing against this. However, they are arguing against the narrow interpretation that some want to give this statement.
Who better than a pope knows that his predecessors meant to say and why they said it in a particular way and not another way?
I’m not about to place myself in that position and say, “I understand this better than the pope.” Are you?
A
Armor_of_Light
Guest
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Yes Protestants are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and are capable of being saved (without ever having received the sacrament of Confession). The difference however is that they are not aware that the Catholic Church is Christ’s one true Church on Earth, and therefore cannot be damned simply through ignorance that is no fault of their own. To separate oneself from the Church, in the full knowledge that within the Church lies the most full presence of Christ on Earth, is a different matter entirely.
P
ProVobis
Guest
BrJR, of course. That’s why we have the EF in the first place.
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s a perfect example of a pope looking back and saying, “Wait a minute. This means A, not B.”BrJR, of course. That’s why we have the EF in the first place.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
*A big issue that sedevacantists have is with certain Vatican II documents, namely the documents on religious liberty/freedom. Namely, the idea that there are elements of Truth in other religions (but not the Fullness of Truth). They cling to the “no salvation outside of the Catholic Church” notion, however their perception and view of what is the Catholic Church is very small. They also lack knowledge of metaphysics and how God is not bound by our perceptions of time, and refuse to acknowledge the teaching of Baptism of Desire.Melchior…
Are you being obtuse?
Typically at this point when talking to sede’s, I mention something that I call “The Lewis Dilemma”. Is CS Lewis in Heaven? His works certainly merit such. He never converted publicly to Catholicism. Yet as several documents state, everyone in Heaven is Catholic, so there is an apparent disconnect there.
Or is there?
Is it not possible that ten milliseconds before his death, he had a “Baptism of Desire”, so to speak? Is it possible he was so close to Catholicism, without knowing, and Christ gave him that chance to say “yes” to Catholicism? To Christ, ten milliseconds is an eternity. Being Catholic is the Absolute Truth, and better equips us to make that final “yes”, that I will not deny. But perhaps, the Divine Mercy of Christ allows for some to say “yes” in those final moments, in a “Baptism of Desire”. In essence; Catholicism gives you a better chance to say “yes” before you die since you’re already Catholic, but that does not exclude the chance that others could say yes in the moments before their death.
The paragraph above shows no conflict with Church teaching; what I described clearly shows that everyone in heaven is Catholic. What it does do is leave room for the Mercy of God, while also still showcasing the need to spread the Faith and why people should consider converting to Catholicism; we want people in Heaven. We want them to know the Truth. Why should we deny them this?
This is how you can reconcile Vatican II with other Councils in this regard. Yes, everyone in Heaven is Catholic. It’s a question of when they convert, and in some cases they may convert before death.
To polish off this specific item, we can look no further than Aquinas, who says; As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, “He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,” a gloss says: “He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism. Yet catechumens who die without baptism can be saved but only as through fire. That is, they are absolved of eternal punishment, not temporal punishment.”
Aquinas’ is probably the worse case scenario, where those who receive a baptism of desire likely undergo a purification process, however they still get into Heaven. All told, I think it’s safe to say there’s no contradiction there.*
From my blog, hopefully it elaborates my brief post earlier somewhat.
I’ve put a lot of thought into how Vatican II documents can be reconciled with “only Catholics get into Heaven”, and the expert I posted is essentially what I came up with.
D
dominic_aquinas
Guest
You are 100% correct. Thank you for correcting me. I intended to be somewhat humorous but I could see how it could be interpreted as rude and condescending. I apologize to Melchior and to anyone else that may have been offended. Melchior, I’m sorry that I’d didn’t respond to your post in a more kind and professional manner. I’ll do a better job next time.
C
clem456
Guest
Matthew 20:1-16 us instructive for me in this area. The key phrases being the first and last.
Jesus speaking:
Jesus speaking:
M
Melchior_1
Guest
I took it as a mix of humor and combativeness, which at times I use as well, so no harm done!
B
Brendan_64
Guest
P
PJM
Guest
OK:shrug:
How do you get to this “unjust war” from anything I posted?
CONFUSED AND COMPLEXED
- Status