What must we do to be saved?

[EENS]

Stylite:

EENS,

A question for you to help me sharpen my understanding of your position.

Would an ignorant Lutheran man who died instantaneously (and having no chance to sin voluntarily) after receiving a valid Baptism go to Hell?

If he is a man, yes. If he is a baby, no. If he is a baby, he would go directly to Heaven (Baptism takes away all sins, and he is not a heretic because he has not rejected any dogma). I don’t believe in “invicible ignorance.” If it does exist, that would not be a method of salvation. The Church alone is the Ark of Salvation. God bless.

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

EENS:

If he is a man, yes. If he is a baby, no.

How, EENS? The Church has always taught that valid baptism can be administered by anyone (cf., e.g., Augustine and the Donatists), and hence if anyone is validly baptized, he is by definition in a state of sanctifying grace. In Stylite’s scenario, he dies instantaneously, without the chance to sin. Therefore, he dies in the state of grace, and hence it is impossible for him to be damned.

 

[Stylite]

EENS,

So then, you disagree with the distinction between Formal and Material heretics? (“Those are by no means to be accounted heretics who do not defend their false and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal (animositas), especially when their error is not the fruit of audacious presumption but has been communicated to them by seduced and lapsed parents, and when they are seeking the truth with cautious solicitude and ready to be corrected” St. Augustine)

Further, if this man has all sin removed via baptism, and no chance to consent to grave matter, he can still be damned?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

EENS,

It would be noteworthy to remind you all that the excommunication was rescinded. (This letter et al. from BEFORE the rescinding of the excommunication are no longer withstanding afterward.)

LOL!!! Is that it? Is that the best defense you can put forth for you patron “saint”? That’s pretty weak.

The letter was not rescinded. It was addressed to the Archbishop of Boston. It made no knew interpretations but made clear the Fr. Feeney’s interpretation was incorrect and the Pius IX’s interpretation was the authentic view of the Teaching Church.

You assert without canonical support:

This letter et al. from BEFORE the rescinding of the excommunication are no longer withstanding afterward

Who says? You? Surely you have more than just your opinion to support such a claim? Can you cite for me please the precedence from canon law that supports such a claim?

Likewise, can you provide evidence for me that Feeney’s excommunication was “rescinded”? I believe the canonical term is “remission” of the penalty. The former implies that the excommunication was never valid. The later means Fr. Feeney was reconciled, in other words, in the opinion of the Supreme Judge, he endured the penalty of his criminal act.

 

[EENS]

itsjustdave1988:

EENS,
I believe Pope St. Pius X’s teaching just zoomed right by you.

…

I ask again … which source of Catholic Tradition tells me that I shoud accept non-magisterial opinion over what has been formally decreed as the interpretation of this infallible dogma by the TEACHING CHURCH?

I know what you meant, but I was saying, St. Pius X said that all must follow the Teaching Authority of the Church; therefore, those who do not are not saved.

The Teaching Church has defined before that this means that no one can be saved outside the visible Church. If a new interpretation is made, then there are two Teaching interpretations. Which, do you ask, should we follow? If you contend that this new Teaching is infallible (which it is not, as it is always presented under a fallible premise), then it contradicts previous Teaching Authority, showing that either neither is infallible or the newest is fallible, for the new cannot be infallible while the old “becomes” fallible. In that case, I would answer you question by stating that you are better off following the constant Tradition of the Church and the constant Teaching Authority rather than the new authority, for the new cannot be infallible unless the old is, as well. Therefore, you can never be following something that is fallible by following the old Teaching Authority. Also, I would consider it more likely that the pre-Modernism Teaching Authority would be more reliable. For example, there was never taught Baptism other than of water even merely 53 years ago. My mother was taugh that without water Baptism it is absolutely impossible to be saved (born 1951). She had a brain injury and lost a lot of her memory, yet she still clearly remembers that. The first thing destroyed was the Church (as long as one was Baptised he could be saved). Now within the past 50 years Baptism itself is being destroyed. Now, some Church officials teach that you need not even believe in God. You can be an atheist or a pagan and still be saved! St. Paul outrightly condemns the idea that a pagan can be save dor invincibly ignorant in Scripture. He states that even Natural Law refutes such absurdity. It is clear that Church officials are slacking off on salvation. Why? I don’t know, but the facts are clear: first the Church, then Baptism, then belief at all–right down the drain. God bless.

 

[EENS]

Chris Burgwald:

How, EENS? The Church has always taught that valid baptism can be administered by anyone (cf., e.g., Augustine and the Donatists), and hence if anyone is validly baptized, he is by definition in a state of sanctifying grace. In Stylite’s scenario, he dies instantaneously, without the chance to sin. Therefore, he dies in the state of grace, and hence it is impossible for him to be damned.

No becasue even as he is being baptised he does not believe the Doctrine of the Church, which is necessary for salvation. This is a sin, and it is a sin that is always present.

 

[EENS]

itsjustdave1988:

EENS,

LOL!!! Is that it? Is that the best defense you can put forth for you patron “saint”? That’s pretty weak.

The letter was not rescinded. It was addressed to the Archbishop of Boston. It made no knew interpretations but made clear the Fr. Feeney’s interpretation was incorrect and the Pius IX’s interpretation was the authentic view of the Teaching Church.

You assert without canonical support:
Who says? You? Surely you have more than just your opinion to support such a claim? Can you cite for me please the precedence from canon law that supports such a claim?

Likewise, can you provide evidence for me that Feeney’s excommunication was “rescinded”? I believe the canonical term is “remission” of the penalty. The former implies that the excommunication was never valid. The later means Fr. Feeney was reconciled, in other words, in the opinion of the Supreme Judge, he endured the penalty of his criminal act.

I didn’t use canonical support, and I didn’t use my “opinion” either. I stated: The Church has never allowed a known heretic/schismatic to enter into the Church assuch without recanting of his beliefs (the Church has required those converting from heresy to denounce all heresies, especially that particular one when converting to or back to the Church). Why, then, does the Church allow Father Feeney back to the Church without recanting his belief, expecially when he was already excommunicated? If the Church does not allow those outside the fold to enter without denouncing heresy, surely those who were PUT OUT of the fold would not be allowed back in if they still hold to heresy. That would be a grave error for whoever does so and a scandal to the faithful who would think that he had no error. That is why the Church always requires a recantation. None was given; therefore, there was no error to recant.

 

[Stylite]

EENS:

No becasue even as he is being baptised he does not believe the Doctrine of the Church, which is necessary for salvation. This is a sin, and it is a sin that is always present.

EENS,
Heresy is objectively grave matter, I agree. However, do you not believe that one must have full knowledge and consent to incur guilt?

 

[EENS]

Stylite:

EENS,
Heresy is objectively grave matter, I agree. However, do you not believe that one must have full knowledge and consent to incur guilt?

The same way the Church does: unless you be a part of the Church at your death, you cannot be saved. Baptism, as you said he has is necessary; however, it is not the ONLY necessity. Being a member of the Church is a necessity, also.

God puts people in certain situations for a reason. No one has a “right” to Heaven. God, as the foot notes to the Douay-Rheims Bible state (certainly won’t find this in the NAB and other liberal notes), God puts men where he does for a reason. If God puts a man on a stranded island, He knows whether or not the man would have rejected Him and His Church anyway. God bless.

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

Stylite:

However, do you not believe that one must have full knowledge and consent to incur guilt?

NB: “consent” is an act of the intellect, and in the hypothetical situation outlined by Stylite, the Lutheran died before he was able to commit any sin, and hence cannot be guilty of heresy, as Stylite indicates here.

An analogous situation would be the baptism of a divorced and remarried person: they do not actually commit a sin until they have sex with their second partner. So, too, with the baptized Lutheran: only when they actually deny an article of the Catholic Faith (NB: not their misunderstanding of the article) might they be considered to have sinned.

 

[Stylite]

EENS,
you didn’t answer my question. Do you believe that one must have full knowledge and consent to incur the guilt of mortal sin?

From RECONCILIATIO ET PAENITENTIA: (section 17)

Here we have the core of the Church’s traditional teaching, which was reiterated frequently and vigorously during the recent Synod. The Synod in fact not only reaffirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent concerning the existence and nature of mortal and venial sins,[95] but it also recalled that mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. It must be added as was likewise done at the Synod that some sins are intrinsically grave and mortal by reason of their matter. That is, there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object. These acts, if carried out with sufficient awareness and freedom, are always gravely sinful

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

EENS:

The same way the Church does: unless you be a part of the Church at your death, you cannot be saved. Baptism, as you said he has is necessary; however, it is not the ONLY necessity. Being a member of the Church is a necessity, also.

But baptism makes one a member of the Church; that’s one of its effects.

 

[EENS]

Stylite:

EENS,
you didn’t answer my question. Do you believe that one must have full knowledge and consent to incur the guilt of mortal sin?

From RECONCILIATIO ET PAENITENTIA: (section 17)

Here we have the core of the Church’s traditional teaching, which was reiterated frequently and vigorously during the recent Synod. The Synod in fact not only reaffirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent concerning the existence and nature of mortal and venial sins,[95] but it also recalled that mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. It must be added as was likewise done at the Synod that some sins are intrinsically grave and mortal by reason of their matter. That is, there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object. These acts, if carried out with sufficient awareness and freedom, are always gravely sinful

Numerous Saints have stated that those who are baptised outside the Church are not saved. They can come to a remission of sin, but they are not saved. As I have said many times before, I don’t believe in “invincible ignorance” saving a person. Only by membership to the Church are we saved. One who denies a Truth of the Church and is still Baptised is not forgiven for the denial of that Truth (that sin is constantly every second on the soul–the denial of the Doctrine of the Church).

 

[EENS]

Chris Burgwald:

But baptism makes one a member of the Church; that’s one of its effects.

One who is a member of the Church but rejects Her teaching is damned. God bless.

There are many Baptised Catholics who reject the Truth–they will not be saved without repentence.

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

EENS:

One who is a member of the Church but rejects Her teaching is damned.

Even if you were right, the point which Stylite and I have been trying to make (in different ways) remains: this person hasn’t rejected the Church’s teaching between baptism and death.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

EENS,

An oath is part of the remission of the penalty of excommunication. Are you saying that he didn’t have to profess a vow typically required as part of the remission of penalty? If so, do you have evidence that he was an exception? Do you know the details of his reconciliation? If so, please share them with us. Otherwise, I’ll presume that just like the remission of past excommunications from the Catholic Church, Fr. Feeney’s followed the canonical norm of a vowing belief in the Catholic Church and all she teaches.

Are you gonna address the Teaching Church/Learning Church problem in your argument, or are you merely hoping that little flaw in your position is merely forgotten?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Let me remind you of authentic Catholic teaching on this matter:

Pope St. Pius X:

***"The Teaching Church is composed of all the Bishops, with the Roman Pontiff at their head, be they dispersed throughout the world or assembled together in Council. … ***without doubt we are obliged under pain of eternal damnation to hear the Teaching Church; for Jesus Christ has said to the Pastors of His Church, in the persons of the Apostles: ‘He who hears you, hears Me, and he who despises you, despises Me.’ "

Was Fr. Feeney part of the Teaching or Learning Church? What about you? Do the non-magisterial opinions of the Learning Church overrule the authentic teaching of the Teaching Church?

You said:

The magisterial opinion is fallible. The non-magisterial opinion sees clearly what the Church teaches …

Is this your opinion? Or has the Teaching Church formally taught this? If not, by what authority do you assert such a thing?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

EENS,

Numerous Saints have stated that those who are baptised outside the Church are not saved.

You may want to check what Pope Stephen I in the 3th century ruled on this point, in addition to the Council of Trent. Read about it here… newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Here’s an excerpt:

… the canons on baptism decreed by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, De Baptismo), in which the following doctrines are anathematized (declared heretical):

… Baptism given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost with the intention of performing what the Church performs, is not true baptism

 

[EENS]

itsjustdave1988:

EENS,

An oath is part of the remission of the penalty of excommunication. Are you saying that he didn’t have to profess a vow typically required as part of the remission of penalty? If so, do you have evidence that he was an exception? Do you know the details of his reconciliation? If so, please share them with us. Otherwise, I’ll presume that just like the remission of past excommunications from the Catholic Church, Fr. Feeney’s followed the canonical norm of a vowing belief in the Catholic Church and all she teaches.

Are you gonna address the Teaching Church/Learning Church problem in your argument, or are you merely hoping that little flaw in your position is merely forgotten?

All he had to do was recite the Athanasian Creed to be “re-admitted” into the Church. That same Creed expressly contains that only Catholics can be saved, all others shall “without doubt perish everlastingly.” Why would that be chosen as the means for “re-admittance” if it contains what he supposedly misrepresented as heresy?

Further, I was on a different topic and have not been able to answer the Lutheran idea fully as of yet. God bless.

 

[EENS]

Chris Burgwald:

Even if you were right, the point which Stylite and I have been trying to make (in different ways) remains: this person hasn’t rejected the Church’s teaching between baptism and death.

Yes he has. He is CONSTANTLY rejecting is, as he believes heresy. Does his heresy disappear for a second, while he states that he believes all the Church teaches? If he does stop believing in the lutheran heresy, and he believes in the Church and is baptised, THEN he is saved. If not, he cannot be saved.