G
Genesis315
Guest
You can’t judge the state of someone’s soul.
- Status
G
Genesis315
Guest
I pulled up the address in question, which can be found here:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060518_ambassadors_en.html
He is talking to a group of ambassadors from countries where Christians are minorities (with the exception of Australia, and there, Catholics are minorities). He is primarily ensuring freedom for the Catholic faith in these heavily non-Christian countries. This is the traditional approach applied to non-Catholic countries to ensure peace.
Pius XII enunciates it here in his letter Ci Riesce:
Depending upon the religious belief of the great majority of citizens, or by reason of an explicit declaration of law, peoples and member states of the international community will be divided into those that are Christian, non-Christian, indifferent to religion or consciously without it, or even professedly atheist. The interests of religion and morality will require for the whole extent of the international community a well-defined rule, which will hold for all the territory of the individual sovereign member-states of the international community. According to probability and depending on circumstances, it can be foreseen that this ruling of positive law will be thus enunciated: within its own territory and for its own citizens, each state will regulate religious and moral affairs by its own laws. Nevertheless, throughout the whole territory of the international community of states, the citizens of every member-state will be allowed the exercise of their own beliefs and ethical and religious practices, insofar as these do not contravene the penal laws of the state in which they are residing.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060518_ambassadors_en.html
He is talking to a group of ambassadors from countries where Christians are minorities (with the exception of Australia, and there, Catholics are minorities). He is primarily ensuring freedom for the Catholic faith in these heavily non-Christian countries. This is the traditional approach applied to non-Catholic countries to ensure peace.
Pius XII enunciates it here in his letter Ci Riesce:
Depending upon the religious belief of the great majority of citizens, or by reason of an explicit declaration of law, peoples and member states of the international community will be divided into those that are Christian, non-Christian, indifferent to religion or consciously without it, or even professedly atheist. The interests of religion and morality will require for the whole extent of the international community a well-defined rule, which will hold for all the territory of the individual sovereign member-states of the international community. According to probability and depending on circumstances, it can be foreseen that this ruling of positive law will be thus enunciated: within its own territory and for its own citizens, each state will regulate religious and moral affairs by its own laws. Nevertheless, throughout the whole territory of the international community of states, the citizens of every member-state will be allowed the exercise of their own beliefs and ethical and religious practices, insofar as these do not contravene the penal laws of the state in which they are residing.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Here is the address in question:
He is addressing ambassadors from places where Christians are a minority (except Australia, where Catholics are still a minority). This is the traditional approach in regards to places with such religious diversity. Ensuring a broad religious freedom that even is often the necessary choice to ensure proper peace and rights of men to come to the true faith freely.
Pius XII explains in his letter Ci Riesce:
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12CIRI.HTM
"The duty of repressing moral and religious error cannot therefore be an ultimate norm of action. It must be subordinate to norms, which permit, and even perhaps seem to indicate as the better policy, toleration of error in order to promote a
Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above. First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good."
Civil peace and the free exercise of religion for Catholics and potential converts is the greater good that comes with religious freedom.
He is addressing ambassadors from places where Christians are a minority (except Australia, where Catholics are still a minority). This is the traditional approach in regards to places with such religious diversity. Ensuring a broad religious freedom that even is often the necessary choice to ensure proper peace and rights of men to come to the true faith freely.
Pius XII explains in his letter Ci Riesce:
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12CIRI.HTM
"The duty of repressing moral and religious error cannot therefore be an ultimate norm of action. It must be subordinate to norms, which permit, and even perhaps seem to indicate as the better policy, toleration of error in order to promote a
Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above. First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good."
Civil peace and the free exercise of religion for Catholics and potential converts is the greater good that comes with religious freedom.
N
NonDenom
Guest
Yeah… these guys are all messed up. Go back and look at what the Church really teaches…not what they say that the pope supposedly said or meant.
Hi CMSome anti-Catholics do the same thing in order to try to create an opening for their proselytizing.
So are you in fact saying that none of the things posted was said by any pope?
M
MMLJ
Guest
This is on the Most Holy Family Website. I see no error here.
I think that this is more clear than what some have explained and what Pope Benedict XVI has quoted:
The Trinity and the Incarnation
There is one God in Three Divine Persons (Father, Son and Holy Ghost). The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; yet they are not three gods, but One God. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Son of God, assumed a human nature and became man from the flesh of the Virgin Mary. Our Lord Jesus Christ is one Divine Person with two natures: divine and human. He is God and man. The Trinity (One God: Father, Son and Holy Ghost) and the Incarnation are the two most essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith which no one above reason can be ignorant of and be saved.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: “After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: “And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”
Is not Saint Thomas Aquinas Correct beyond reasonable doubt? Obviously he is. So then why is Benedict XVI on far too many occasions in reasonable doubt? Saint Thomas is clear concise and logically to the point. From what I have read from Benedict so far, many of his quotes are, to say the least, questionable.
Again, i think that The Most Holy Family Website is extreme, but one cannot deny that many of the quotes, and there are many, are clear to what he is saying. Sure some have provided links to few of his full addresses/quotes etc., but they do not address all of his statments. For example his stance on Islam. Benedict XVI continues to hold a deep respect and hold the*** religion of Islam*** in high esteem. This religion denies the Trinity and Jesus the Christ who is GOD. Hence their God and THEE GOD, the Triune GOD, are not the same GOD. How can a sitting Pope say this about those who know perfectly well about Christ and deny him outright?
St Thomas Aquinas is in direct opposition to Benedict XVI.
D
DJim
Guest
D
DJim
Guest
I see NOTHING but error at that site–the information and presentation of information there is appalling. Lacking in basic Christian charity, not to mention facts.
No he is not.
In any case, if Aquinas were in direct opposition to the Church or the Pope on an issue, guess who “wins” the debate?
The POPE, not Aquinas.
Pius IX, for example, “won” the debate on Mary’s Immaculate Conception, which Aquinas, at best, struggled with because of the erroneous science of his day.
Sedevacantists forget who has the authority as the living Magisterium of the Church.
Not only do they “forget” it, they outright DENY it.
That’s very liberating, apparently. Then there’s really no one left to challenge their erroneous views…
DJim
G
GerardP
Guest
Then how does a priest know if someone has committed a mortal sin?
G
GerardP
Guest
You’re being too emotional about this. The same thing could be said of many of the personalities on EWTN.
At the very least he doesn’t uphold St. Thomas’s teachings. And St. Thomas is the official theologian of the Church.
B16 has admitted himself without shame that he doesn’t get St. Thomas. He’s Hegelian in philosophy and an Augustinian in theology ultimately.
The problem is, that is not automatically true. If a Pope preaches against something that the Church has endorsed by St. Thomas as correct (eg. Transubstantiation) then what St. Thomas has taught has been accepted Magisterially and the Pope can’t deny it.
St. Paul and St. Peter were in direct opposition re: interreligious dialogue. It was right and proper for St.Paul to “resist Kephas to his face. Because he walked not uprightly with the gospel.”
In that case an inferior corrected a superior.
Pius IX settled the debate. He didn’t win the debate. Aquinas knew what the Magisterium was and it was his arguments that helped scholars and ultimately the Pope arrive at the truth of the matter.
Sedes are a symptom of a very real problem in the heirarchy. The Popes have behaved so strangely over the last decades that the sedes can’t believe that a Pope would contribute to tearing down the Church.
That’s where sedes and those with excessive zeal for the Pope agree. The difference is the sedes see the contradictions and can’t accept them. Those with excessive zeal for the person of the Pope see the contradictions but deny they are contradictions.
In the 1920’s Fr. LeFloch of the French seminary predicted that an exaggerated understanding of the papacy and infallibility would lead to trouble.
G
Genesis315
Guest
No he’s not. Stop reading MHF propaganda. Go to the original sources and read them in their entirety. Read this section of the St. Thomas’ Summa.
newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#2
It has always been the case when some necessity is lacking, it’s desire can suffice, including an implicit desire found in perfect love of God above all things.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, another Doctor of the Church, explains:
Moral Theology - (Bk. 6): "But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism
of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called ‘of wind’ ‘flaminis’] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ‘flamen’]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon ‘Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato’ and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.’"
Notice that all that is necessary is *implicit *desire, not just an explicit one.
Read also this letter from the 1948 Holy Office which explains this fact well:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendixe.html
Another Doctor, St. Robert Bellarmine says:
“Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire, and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water. It is to be noted that any conversion whatsoever cannot be called baptism of desire; but only perfect conversion, which includes true contrition and charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of baptism” (De Sacramento Baptismi, Liber I cap. VI).
Go read the primary sources. Read the full texts of things. Stop receiving MHF snippets uncritically, but words of the Holy Father with the utmost scrutiny.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Again, why did St. Pius X allow this to be put this in his catechism?
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
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
D
DJim
Guest
You have no way of knowing just how emotional–or emtionless–I’m being. But you do seem awfully hung up on EWTN.
HUH? This is absolutely hilarious! The Pope–the ONE human being in the entire Church possessed of personally infallibile teaching authority–is supposed to adhere to Aquinas because someone once called him “the official theologian” of the Church??? I thought it was only a few wacky “liberals” who held to the notion of a “double magisterium” that included theologians. I guess I was wrong…?
No wonder he’s so brilliant–Augustine is a great model. But, please, provide the full quote in which Benedict says he doesn’t get STA. Love to see it…
The Pope does not “preach” against the Magisterium.
Uh, Aquinas is dead. He can’t “correct” the Pope. Nor was Galatians about “interreligious dialogue”! That’s preposterous! It was intrareligious discipline that was the conflict. Peter’s personal behavior, not his teaching.
No, it wasn’t. There really wasn’t even “debate” at the time. My point was that Aquinas was not always error-free. The Magisterium, when teaching universally and definitively in faith/morals, IS.
WRONG. They are themselves a very real problem in the LAITY. The problem is human pride. A lack of willingness to obey the living Magisterium of the Church. A belief in the superiority of their own view of Church doctrine, unwilling to submit to those whom Jesus appointed to the task of interpretation.
An unfortunate falsehood on your part. Our recent popes have been truly holy men of God inspired by the Holy Spirit to diligently lead the faithful. The Magisterium has been clear and direct and faithful. Unfortunately, many Catholics of differing extremes choose to ignore the Magisterium and instead rely on their own authority to interpret Catholic teaching.
Absurd. It is NOT “excessive zeal for the person of the Pope” that inspires one to humbly and obedient embrace the Catholic faith safeguarded and interpreted infallibly by the living Magisterium of the Church. Rather, it is excessive zeal for one’s own “personal pope”–ME and “my interpretation”–that causes some to believe the Popes aren’t really doing the work of the Holy Spirit.
In 2007, I predict that Fr. LeFloch’s comment will remain largely irrelevant. We’ve had such great popes in the last 75 years that his “prediction” was disproven long ago.
DJim
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Did I say that?
M
MMLJ
Guest
As advised I have read your link to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Can you clarify this part:
**St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica:III Q68 A2:
**
I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
So, how can a Muslim/Hindu etc., who deny the Christ (who is GOD) outright, are fully knowledgeable of him and neither want nor desire Baptism, How are these saved since it is written:
St John 14: 6 …I AM the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father but by me.
St John 11:25-26 …I AM the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live: and everyone that liveth, and believeth in me, shall not die for ever.
So the bottom line question is this: How does Benedict XVI allow others to practice any religion, pagan and those who deny GOD and Christ and say they are still saved?
Benedict XVI, Address, May 18, 2006: “Likewise, peace is rooted in respect for religious freedom, which is a fundamental and primordial aspect of the freedom of conscience of individuals and the freedom of peoples. It is important that everywhere in the world
every person can belong to the religion of his choice and practice it freely without fear, for no one can base his life on the quest of material being alone.”
I do not agree with your answer to this quote in your previous post. As you can see how misleading it has become. He is very educated, and knows exactly what to say and it should be said. If he is continually making these statements and seems not to mind that they are perceived as they are written, with Ambiguity, Then it is one of two things: he either knows what he doing or not.
Once again, if they worship the COW or RAT as in Hinduism and its 20000 + gods, I would fear for them since they know of Christ and do not desire Baptism in any way shape or Form. And definitely would not advise them to worship idols or other cultic ways for peace and politics as you say Benedict XVI expressed. He should be more concerned about the Peace of Christ and the conversion/spread of Catholicism.
M
MMLJ
Guest
Benedict XVI, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000: “[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as
the Son of God in order to be saved… www.zenit.org
As you wished you can obtain the full article here. You have to register first with this news website. It is based in Rome so they are pretty close to where Benedict XVI is and speak with him frequently. Hope this helps to allay your confusion and please I would appreciate your reply to tell me what your understanding of it is. Thank you.
Are you for real, is this what you understand this statement to be? Is this the mission of Catholicism now? According to GOD there is only one religion. Religious freedom does not mean to practice Cultic, Pagan and other rituals or does it according to your understanding? Are you saying that all are free not to be Catholic and Practice Cult/Idol/Pagan/Satanic etc. worship? Satanism is a religion under your definition and by the above quote. Please clarify your position here.
Most of us laity wish that it were, yet Pope Benedict XVI not been able to clarify himself on a number of issues. If he was clear, as a Pope should be, than we and 1000’s of others, would not be having this discussion.
D
DJim
Guest
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI did not say that such non-Christians could be saved–you’ve named a category of non-Christian which does not apply to what the Pope was saying. If there is full knowledge PLUS rejection of Baptism or the desire for it, there is no basis upon which a person can be incorporated into the Church.
The Pope is merely admitting of the possibility of salvation for those in other religions, the same possibility the Magisterium has been teaching for centuries.
That possibility is even present in the quote above from Aquinas, who uses the phrase “neither sacramentally nor mentally”–implying that those may be saved who are either sacamentally or mentally incorporated into Christ.
He doesn’t. He doesn’t say they are still saved. He’s stating–truthfully–that there is the possibility of salvation for those in other religions, which the Church has always taught as true. They may be saved in spite of false religion, NOT “because of” it.
\
Nothing at all wrong with this quote–his point is that material existence alone is NOT enough–there must me a spiritual dimension to man’s existence. Part of that spiritual existence involves the freedom to be able to pursue it.
The human conscience cannot be coerced to the truth–it must be led to the truth. As such, the conscience must possess free will–just as we accept the principle of “free will” as applied to sin in our lives (we are capable of freely choosing good or evil), we know that free will is essential to human choice when it comes to truth or falsehood–even in religion. This doesn’t encourage the choosing of falsehood, but recognizes the necessity of having the choice.
Just a moment–you have no way of knowing which Hindus “know of Christ” (as in “full knowledge” which you mention above) and which don’t, nor which have a desire for justification (baptism of desire) and which don’t. It’s okay to pray for their conversion as a group, but it’s not okay to assume that all are incapable of being saved.
The Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI does NOT advise the worship of idols. You have now begun to move from ripping his words out of context to spinning them according to your needs.
Let me ask you outright–do you, MMLJ, believe that Pope Benedict XVI IS the legitimately elected Pope and Vicar of Christ here on Earth, or not?
DJim
D
DJim
Guest
Now let me demonstrate the UNCONSCIONABLE tactics our misguided sedevacantists go to furthering their corrupt agenda.
We have been asked to explain this quote:
Further, herre is a more full rendering:
Or perhaps they did not think this was important:
if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not blameworthy, to preclude it."
Can be saved IF…
Is it any wonder these folks are so aggravating? Not to mention the fact that I really dislike it when people say erroneous and ridiculous things about my papa.
DJim
We have been asked to explain this quote:
Now, if one is not paying attention to the dates, one might conlcude that a Pope actually made that remark. But that’s NOT true. Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, made that statement. It is NOT a papal statement.
Further, herre is a more full rendering:
The sedevacantist propagandists have ripped his words COMPLETELY out of context.
Or perhaps they did not think this was important:
if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not blameworthy, to preclude it."
Can be saved IF…
Is it any wonder these folks are so aggravating? Not to mention the fact that I really dislike it when people say erroneous and ridiculous things about my papa.
DJim
J
japhy
Guest
Yeah. I got here too late; I was about to post the context.
Is it hard to see that Cardinal Ratzinger’s remark in 2000 is in line with answer #29 in the Catechism of Pius X? “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.”
D
DJim
Guest
G
GerardP
Guest
The language can be understood here to mean “on the way” as in “will somehow get the sacrament of Baptism or absolution depending on what is necessary for them before death.”
- Status