Vatican II changes things?

[diggerdomer]

Can you please cite V2 and the Catechism where it says that the ordinary Magisterium teaches infallibly?

Lumen Gentium, para 25

Catechism para 891 ff.

 

[diggerdomer]

What happens when the prior ordinary Magisterium said something contrary to the current? or at least seemed to be? And what happens if the infallible Magisterium defined a dogma and the ordinary Magisterium seems to be teaching contrary to that dogma? That is what we are trying to figure out right now and how the statements fit together.

Since you said your approach is to take V2 with the same as preV2 teachings, what do you make of the Church’s teaching on NSOC? How do you understand it? Do you believe that there is salvation outside the Church or that outside the Church certain people can be saved?

If the prior Ordinary Magisterium said something that is or seems to be contradictory to the present Ordinary Magisterium, then I would expect (and I’ve never been disappointed) that the present Ordinary Magisterium would present its teachings in a way that any seeming contradiction to prior teachings could be reasonably accepted.

I’ve never encountered an instance where something taught infallibly was later contradicted.

I make/understand the Church’s teaching on NSOC to be as the Church teaches (CCC 846-848) :

How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

If there are parts of those paragraphs that we need to “unpack” more let me know.

Do I believe there is salvation outside the Church or that outside the Church certain people can be saved? If “outside” means outside the visible, historical, concrete membership, then yes (as the Catechism para above note). If by “outside” you mean those who deny the truths God has revealed that the Church witnesses to and tries to embody…probably not…though I’m personally hesitant to say definitively no because I leave the final judgment up to God (thankfully, God is more merciful than I am).

Did I miss any questions?

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Vatican I, infallible & irreformable:
“Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by* holy mother church*, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding”
3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm

From your first post, No 9:

The Church prior to Vatican II clearly taught that one needed to be Catholic to be saved.

Fr. Leonard was excommunicated for failure to comply with the Holy See on this very subject in 1953, that is pre-Vatican II:

On 8 August 1949, the Holy Office sent an official declaration of the meaning of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, which Feeney refused to accept.[3] After repeatedly refusing summons to Rome, Feeney was excommunicated on 13 February 1953 by the Holy See for persistent disobedience to legitimate Church authority…

I think what is askew here isn’t Vatican II.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I see where you already answered the Feeney question:

Feeney was condemned because he did not recognize an explicit desire for baptism. Not for believing that there is no salvation outside the Church. Those with an explicit desire for baptism are truly united to the Church through their desire (in voto). Augustine, Aquinas, and other popes have clearly taught this fact. He was not condemned for believeing that there was absolutely no salvation outside the Church, just for his rigorist understanding of baptism only by water and not by desire or blood.

True:

Fr. Feeney sacrificed Catholic Truth on the altar of his doctrine of No Salvation Without Baptism of Water. For traditional Catholic people, however, Fr. Feeney is actually a greater danger than Martin Luther. For while Lutheranism poses no threat to the remnant of faithful Catholics; the teaching of Fr. Feeney certainly does as is evidenced by his growing popularity among traditionally minded Catholics.

alcazar.net/Feeney3.html

There is a problem in seeing Christ as subservient to doctrine. If Christ, through the Holy Spirit, further enlightens doctrine, then those opposed to it are doing just that. Dogma is another matter as this is a formally defined doctrine, something that cannot be redefined. Doctrine that must be beholden to an understanding previously held and can’t be understood in accordance with the Holy Spirit further enlightening us, is the same as saying we must hold to what the Apostles taught only, a Catholic “Sola Scriptura”. The definitive proclamation of what makes up the Church is that doctrine and NOCS is the dogma.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding"

Same doctrine: NOCS, the same sense: No One, the same understanding: SAVED! To remain rigid is to preclude the working of the Holy Spirit in the same sense the Pharisee’s were rigid in the law against Jesus.

 

[una_fides]

Lumen Gentium, para 25

Catechism para 891 ff.

I’ve read them but can’t seem to place where it says that the ordinary Magisterium teaches infallibly. Can you please quote the relevant portion? Thanks.

 

[una_fides]

Read the Gospels: take and eat, not stick out your tongue and let me place the bread on it.

Where do you get the idea that St. Cyril’s reference is an isolated instance?

Jesus was speaking to the Apostles on Holy Thursday when he instituted the priesthood. He was speaking to them.

I also do not know where you are getting your understanding of the word “take” as if it somehow implies “take this into your hand” or “grab a hold of this with your hands” and eat it. You wrongfully understand the word. I “take” Communion on my tongue. You are assuming the Greek word for “take” has the same connotation today, but in reality the Greek word has a passive understanding and has the meaning of to “accept” or “receive” (lambano).

Regarding Cyril, read the three links I provided when you get a chance. They will explain.

 

[diggerdomer]

i’ve read them but can’t seem to place where it says that the ordinary magisterium teaches infallibly. Can you please quote the relevant portion? Thanks.

ccc 891

the infallibility promised to the church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme magisterium," above all in an ecumenical council. When the church through its supreme magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” this infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine revelation itself.

lg 25

although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.

 

[una_fides]

I see where you already answered the Feeney question: …
There is a problem in seeing Christ as subservient to doctrine. If Christ, through the Holy Spirit, further enlightens doctrine, then those opposed to it are doing just that. Dogma is another matter as this is a formally defined doctrine, something that cannot be redefined. Doctrine that must be beholden to an understanding previously held and can’t be understood in accordance with the Holy Spirit further enlightening us, is the same as saying we must hold to what the Apostles taught only, a Catholic “Sola Scriptura”. The definitive proclamation of what makes up the Church is that doctrine and NOCS is the dogma.

Same doctrine: NOCS, the same sense: No One, the same understanding: SAVED! To remain rigid is to preclude the working of the Holy Spirit in the same sense the Pharisee’s were rigid in the law against Jesus.

So you’re accusing an infallible General Council’s definition of how to understand dogmas defined by the Church as working contrary to the Holy Spirit, having a rigid understanding of dogmas, and the equivalent of the pharisees? Again, Vatican I defined how we are to understand dogmas. The reason is not a “stifling of the Holy Spirit.” The reason is that truth remains the same. It cannot change. What was true 2000 years ago remains true today. The Church pulls from the sacred deposit of the faith, which was entrusted to the Apostles. There is no new revelation after the death of the last apostle. This is the teaching of the Church. The Church draws from that deposit both new things as well as old (Lumen Gentium #25), such as when she defines dogmas infallibly that were not previously defined, such as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. These dogmas were not wrong one day and then later came to be true. They were always true, as they really happened. You cannot change those infallible facts any more than you can change that the Church for 2000 years has clearly taught that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Church, that “no one” outside the Church can be saved.

 

[una_fides]

If the prior Ordinary Magisterium said something that is or seems to be contradictory to the present Ordinary Magisterium, then I would expect (and I’ve never been disappointed) that the present Ordinary Magisterium would present its teachings in a way that any seeming contradiction to prior teachings could be reasonably accepted.

I’ve never encountered an instance where something taught infallibly was later contradicted.

I make/understand the Church’s teaching on NSOC to be as the Church teaches (CCC 846-848) :

If there are parts of those paragraphs that we need to “unpack” more let me know.

Do I believe there is salvation outside the Church or that outside the Church certain people can be saved? If “outside” means outside the visible, historical, concrete membership, then yes (as the Catechism para above note). If by “outside” you mean those who deny the truths God has revealed that the Church witnesses to and tries to embody…probably not…though I’m personally hesitant to say definitively no because I leave the final judgment up to God (thankfully, God is more merciful than I am).

Did I miss any questions?

The whole idea of visible and invisible Church often confuses people today as they seem to think that they are not the same. Christ’s Church is visible. The Mystical Body and the Catholic Church are one in the same, as the Magisterium has clearly taught in the past, as I have quoted already several times on this thread. The question is how one can be joined to the Catholic Church. It is my understanding that the person would be joined to the visible Church through desire, though they would not be “visibly” a member, meaning that others could witness and see that they are a member of the Church. For example, let’s say that a non-Catholic reads and prays and realizes that the Catholic Church is true, and he cooperates with grace to have perfect charity for God and perfect contrition for his sins. He then dies before he is able to tell anyone that he most sincerely planned to join the Church and submit to her teachings. Would he be Catholic? Absolutely because of his desire. It is not necessary for him to observably be a member of the Church, as long as his desire is correctly placed. You would say that he wasn’t a member of the visible Church because no one could observe him receiving the sacraments. I would say, however, that he was a member of the visible Church through his desire, which was motivated by grace and perfect charity.

Have you read my explanation of the catechism passage that I posted earlier on this thread? It must be understood in light of the constant teaching of the Church, just as Scripture must be understood in light of sacred Tradition. You can read my earlier two posts that explain the passage from the catechism you cited HERE and HERE. You never commented on them earlier after you claimed that the Church teaches that there is salvation outside of her, which if that were the case would clearly contradict the Church’s constant prior teachings, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out in this thread.

I look forward to your response to those two earlier posts.

 

[una_fides]

ccc 891

lg 25

When you are referring to the ordinary Magisterium teaching infallibly, you mean when it falls under the category of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. The Church explains that it is only in certain predefined circumstances that the ordinary Magisterium becomes the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible. I was classing these as two different categories. When all or virtually all the bishops in union w/ the pope hold to a definitive dogma or moral practice as must be believed, then that teaching no longer falls under the “ordinary Magisterium” but it then becomes known as the “Universal Ordinary Magisterium.” Individual bishops, however, which teach under the category of the ordinary Magisterium, do not have the charism of infallibility.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

So you’re accusing an infallible General Council’s definition of how to understand dogmas defined by the Church as working contrary to the Holy Spirit, having a rigid understanding of dogmas, and the equivalent of the pharisees?

Absolutely not! YOUR interpretation of what those councils said is rigid and equivalent to the pharisees. That is what I was saying! It isn’t a problem of what the Church teaches on one subject at one council as opposed to another, that is the workings of the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that enlightens us as to doctrine that is different than dogma which is defined doctrine.

There is a deficiency in this type of forum. What is said is misinterpreted because we aren’t together hashing out ideas but are trying to use words through time and space.

This is the same problem with the Church’s documents from one era to another! You pointed out the “same understanding” clause of Vatican I as to how doctrine is to be interpreted. YOU are defining that rigidly and it seems that to do so is to make mistakes in wording as to understanding! This isn’t a denigration of you, but an observation because I don’t even know you! You are definitely trying to be a faithful Catholic, but it seems to be misplaced as to the doctrine of NSOC which the one true Church is expounding because it is not dogma, in which case it couldn’t be redefined. It is doctrine which can be, in the same understanding, which it is. To say other wise is to deny the Holy Spirit in the working of the Church. Parsing infallible with ordinary magisterium is what Mr. diggerdomer (what does THIS mean, by the way?) is also getting at, that is if I am not also mistaken!!!

The only way to know the understanding completely is to be the HOLY SPIRIT, see? I am a faithful Catholic, a convert from a year and a half ago! I’ve been protestant already, it made no sense and led me down the wide path that leads to perdition. The last thing I would do is to denigrate the Church, present or past. That was a misinterpretation of what I wrote a few hours ago, trying it over centuries is even worse, if you aren’t the Holy Spirit. This is why the Church is the Rule of Faith, not the Bible alone. This is why I don’t accept the same understanding that rigidly. I thank you for your responses.

 

[diggerdomer]

When you are referring to the ordinary Magisterium teaching infallibly, you mean when it falls under the category of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. The Church explains that it is only in certain predefined circumstances that the ordinary Magisterium becomes the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible. I was classing these as two different categories. When all or virtually all the bishops in union w/ the pope hold to a definitive dogma or moral practice as must be believed, then that teaching no longer falls under the “ordinary Magisterium” but it then becomes known as the “Universal Ordinary Magisterium.” Individual bishops, however, which teach under the category of the ordinary Magisterium, do not have the charism of infallibility.

I guess I was using one category, the ordinary (as opposed to extraordinary) Magisterium.

And yes, of course, the ordinary Magisterium only teaches infallilbly when it’s all (I really don’t think we can say virtually all) the Bishops in union with the Pope and they choose specifically to exercise that manner of teaching.

So, after perhaps confusing each other enough have we agreed that the ordinary Magisterium can teach infallibly (granted, to do so means it’s also universal)?

 

[diggerdomer]

The whole idea of visible and invisible Church often confuses people today as they seem to think that they are not the same. Christ’s Church is visible. The Mystical Body and the Catholic Church are one in the same, as the Magisterium has clearly taught in the past, as I have quoted already several times on this thread. The question is how one can be joined to the Catholic Church. It is my understanding that the person would be joined to the visible Church through desire, though they would not be “visibly” a member, meaning that others could witness and see that they are a member of the Church. For example, let’s say that a non-Catholic reads and prays and realizes that the Catholic Church is true, and he cooperates with grace to have perfect charity for God and perfect contrition for his sins. He then dies before he is able to tell anyone that he most sincerely planned to join the Church and submit to her teachings. Would he be Catholic? Absolutely because of his desire. It is not necessary for him to observably be a member of the Church, as long as his desire is correctly placed. You would say that he wasn’t a member of the visible Church because no one could observe him receiving the sacraments. I would say, however, that he was a member of the visible Church through his desire, which was motivated by grace and perfect charity.

Have you read my explanation of the catechism passage that I posted earlier on this thread? It must be understood in light of the constant teaching of the Church, just as Scripture must be understood in light of sacred Tradition. You can read my earlier two posts that explain the passage from the catechism you cited HERE and HERE. You never commented on them earlier after you claimed that the Church teaches that there is salvation outside of her, which if that were the case would clearly contradict the Church’s constant prior teachings, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out in this thread.

I look forward to your response to those two earlier posts.

I did read your earlier posts, sorry if you think I didn’t.

You seem to be saying that the only way someone can be saved is either by being in the Catholic Church (meaning, visible, public, baptism, etc.) OR having the specific desire to do so but not being able to before death (and so, according to how I understand you, that person would in fact be joined to the Church albeit not through water baptism, not in a public way, and so on).

Is that right? I’m trying to understand.

If that’s right, I don’t think that’s what the Church teaches. CCC 847 as you know says:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

It does include anything about “and desire to join the Catholic Church.” I think you’re putting more criteria on how these passages should be interpreted than is necessary; meaning you’re specifying more or being more particular about the ways God offers salvation than the text says (and so, I guess, than the church teaches). If they sincerely seek God, and are moved by grace, and try to do his will as they know it…then yes of course my sincere hope is that they would also be led to the Church…but that’s more than what the CCC says.

If…and again please help by clarifying…I understand you correctly, that membership in the Church is required (even if only by desire), then what would be the point of having CCC 847 anyway? It wouldn’t add anything; wouldn’t 846 cover all the cases as you interpret this issue?

I’d also recommend reading Lumen Gentium 14-16. Much better commentary than I could ever give! Note how it says the Church is necessary for salvation and then talks about the variety of people who are variously “incorporated” into the Church…and yet it seems salvation is not ruled out for them.

 

[ron77nyc]

You cannot change those infallible facts any more than you can change that the Church for 2000 years has clearly taught that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Church, that “no one” outside the Church can be saved.

The people from the Old Testament were saved outside the Catholic Church.

Hebrews 11:32 And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 35 Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; 36 and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated 38 (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. 39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

 

[diggerdomer]

Can you please prove that CITH preceded Communion on the tongue. Do you have access to some historical data that everyone else does not?

No, data that is readily accessible and widely recognized by scholars. See Joseph Jungmann’s “Mass of the Roman Rite” vol. 2. He notes many historical sources and evidence for communion in the hand without relying on an incredibly tenuous interpretation of them (as the source you provided does with the statement of St. Cyril). This is a landmark work in liturgical studies, and was published in 1948. It’s stood up to scholarly critique. There are of course numerous other books that deal with this history, but I thought that would be the best reference because of its fame and date.

Furthermore, CITH is not the universal practice of the Church; it is only an indult,

It’s not an indult any more than kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer is.

Do yourself a favor. Go to the TLM. I just got back from one. It’s like being in heaven. The reverence and awe and mystery of the Mass become so readily apparent as we worship our Lord who comes to us under the appearance of bread and wine.

I’ve been. I can see why people say they experience reverence.

 

[una_fides]

The people from the Old Testament were saved outside the Catholic Church. …

I already handled this objection earlier in post 57. That should answer your question. Also here is an except from the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X:

27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
28 Q. How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?
A. The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.
ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm

 

[una_fides]

Absolutely not! YOUR interpretation of what those councils said is rigid and equivalent to the pharisees. That is what I was saying! It isn’t a problem of what the Church teaches on one subject at one council as opposed to another, that is the workings of the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that enlightens us as to doctrine that is different than dogma which is defined doctrine.

There is a deficiency in this type of forum. What is said is misinterpreted because we aren’t together hashing out ideas but are trying to use words through time and space.

This is the same problem with the Church’s documents from one era to another! You pointed out the “same understanding” clause of Vatican I as to how doctrine is to be interpreted. YOU are defining that rigidly and it seems that to do so is to make mistakes in wording as to understanding! This isn’t a denigration of you, but an observation because I don’t even know you! You are definitely trying to be a faithful Catholic, but it seems to be misplaced as to the doctrine of NSOC which the one true Church is expounding because it is not dogma, in which case it couldn’t be redefined. It is doctrine which can be, in the same understanding, which it is. To say other wise is to deny the Holy Spirit in the working of the Church. Parsing infallible with ordinary magisterium is what Mr. diggerdomer (what does THIS mean, by the way?) is also getting at, that is if I am not also mistaken!!!

The only way to know the understanding completely is to be the HOLY SPIRIT, see? I am a faithful Catholic, a convert from a year and a half ago! I’ve been protestant already, it made no sense and led me down the wide path that leads to perdition. The last thing I would do is to denigrate the Church, present or past. That was a misinterpretation of what I wrote a few hours ago, trying it over centuries is even worse, if you aren’t the Holy Spirit. This is why the Church is the Rule of Faith, not the Bible alone. This is why I don’t accept the same understanding that rigidly. I thank you for your responses.

If I’m interpreting Vatican I incorrectly, then please demonstrate the correct way to interpret its teaching that dogmas must be understood in the same sense with the same meaning as they have always had. You are accusing me of being pharisaical because I’m simply taking the Church on her word on it rather than liberalizing and trying to change her teachings.

I think you likely have an incorrect view of the pharisees as well as how the Tradition of the Church fits into understanding Scripture. The problem with the pharisees was that they were relying on their own teachings that they added to the original law given to them by Moses and did not internalize those teachings, such as love of neighbor, etc. They also failed to acknowledge Christ’s teachings because they assumed that they knew more than Him, and they pridefully rejected his teachings. Your attempt to try to fit me into such category could not be farther from the truth, and only demonstrates your resorting to ad hominem attacks rather than exegeting any of the passages you are alleging that I’m misunderstanding. If you or anyone can show me where I believe or am teaching anything contrary to what HMC has taught throughout her history, then I will promptly recant and will believe her teachings. My goal is simply to reiterate what the Church has always taught and understand it in the way she has explained that we are to understand it. The Church tells us how to understand her teachings, as she has done in Vatican I, and it is our duty to faithfully adhere to those teachings. That said, if you would like to argue the facts, please do. Explain what Vatican I is saying and how it is to be properly understood, exegete the CCC and the Church’s prior teachings and explain what they are saying, but let’s refrain from the labeling as “pharisees” etc as it is not in any way condusive to dialogue nor does it help further our understanding of anything.

 

[ron77nyc]

I already handled this objection earlier in post 57. That should answer your question. Also here is an except from the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X:

27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
28 Q. How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?
A. The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.
ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm

Jesus, the Church, and the gospel did not exist at that time. How could that be true?

My friend once told me that Abraham was the first Jehovah’s Witness. I told him that was impossible because the Jehovah’s Witnesses started in the late 1800’s.

The Church, and the gospel did not exist in Noah’s day so that would be impossible also. Job said, “I know my redeemer lives” but that does not mean he was a Catholic.

 

[una_fides]

You seem to be saying that the only way someone can be saved is either by being in the Catholic Church (meaning, visible, public, baptism, etc.) OR having the specific desire to do so but not being able to before death (and so, according to how I understand you, that person would in fact be joined to the Church albeit not through water baptism, not in a public way, and so on).

Is that right? I’m trying to understand.

If that’s right, I don’t think that’s what the Church teaches. CCC 847 as you know says:

It does include anything about “and desire to join the Catholic Church.” I think you’re putting more criteria on how these passages should be interpreted than is necessary; meaning you’re specifying more or being more particular about the ways God offers salvation than the text says (and so, I guess, than the church teaches). If they sincerely seek God, and are moved by grace, and try to do his will as they know it…then yes of course my sincere hope is that they would also be led to the Church…but that’s more than what the CCC says.

The catechism passage does not explain how they will be saved but just says that such people *can *be saved. When we read the Church’s past infallible teachings on this matter, we understand that since no one can be saved outside the Church, such people in an invincibly ignorant state *can *be saved as the Church has always said they can, which is through a desire for baptism motivated by perfect charity. There’s a lot that the current catechism does not say or explain on this matter. It was just designed to be a summary, but it does not explain every detail pertaining to how the salvation works. Our faith is not sola Scriptura nor is it solum catechismus (the catechism alone). It is the constant teaching of the Church and as with anything it must be understood in the fullness of Catholic Tradition. This is one topic that Tradition expounds more fully upon than what is contained in the current catechism. A look at the Baltimore catechism and the Letter to the Holy Office regarding Fr. Feeney clearly expound further upon this issue than the current catechism does. For example, there is no mention of perfect charity in the current passage, yet we know from the infallible Council of Trent that for everyone that only perfect contrition suffices for forgiveness of sins outside the sacrament of confession. While the current CCC mentions that elsewhere it does not tie that into our understanding of how one outside the Church could be saved (which again is by entering the Church through either reality or at least by desire). That is why the catechism explains in 848 that God would give those people such divine faith that is pleasing to him. Prior Church teachings on this issue explain that only the true faith is pleasing to God. Ergo, God would give these invincibly ignorant people, who pefectly follow the dictates of a true conscience and have perfect charity, a special revelation of the true faith that is pleasing to him.

And even if one were to take the idea that such people do not necessarily need any explicit faith at some point before death, you would still have to conclude that they would be united by the Church by an unconsious and implicit desire that would have manifested itself outwardly through a desire to enter the Church if they had known of it. But again, the likelihood of salvation in those instances because of human nature and the difficulty to foster the necessarily pefect contrition and charity would make them extremely rare, IMHO, as well as the saints and doctors of the Church who have explained what Aquinas sums up that “those who will be saved are in the minority.”

 

[una_fides]

If…and again please help by clarifying…I understand you correctly, that membership in the Church is required (even if only by desire), then what would be the point of having CCC 847 anyway? It wouldn’t add anything; wouldn’t 846 cover all the cases as you interpret this issue?

I’d also recommend reading Lumen Gentium 14-16. Much better commentary than I could ever give! Note how it says the Church is necessary for salvation and then talks about the variety of people who are variously “incorporated” into the Church…and yet it seems salvation is not ruled out for them.

Salvation is not ruled out for them unless they die in a state outside of the Church. The purpose of 847, IMHO, is to placate those who say, “what about those people who never knew about Christ and his Church? Are they all going to hell?” The Church here seems to be answering, that it’s possible that they can be saved, but the passage doesn’t explain how that would take place other than the indication that we have in 848 that God would lead them to the faith that pleases him, which again is only the Catholic faith.

Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, March 17, 1856:
“Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children.[2] There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord,[3] outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation.”

Baltimore Catechism, Lesson 6: On Sin and Its Kinds:
In the same way, God will not accept any worship or religion but the one He has revealed. He tells us Himself how He wishes to be worshipped, and our own invented methods will not please Him. Hence we see the folly of those who say that all religions are equally good, and that we can be saved by practicing any of them. We can be saved only in the one religion which God Himself has instituted, and by which He wishes to be honored.