For better understanding of the Church’s position on the topic “Outside the Church there is no salvation” I would suggest everyone read Dominus Iesus in its entirety. There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding when only reading Cantate Domino, a bull written by Pope Eugene concerning this topic. For purposes of clarification and brevity I have listed pertinent portions of both documents here (Cantate Domino and Dominus Iesus), showing there is no inconsistency when comparing what each has said regarding this topic.

Cantate Domino - Defining the Solemn Doctrine: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - Pope Eugene the IV, Council of Florence, 1441

The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. 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 they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Dominus Iesus - on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church - Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - Joseph Card. Ratzinger, August 6, 2000

14. It must therefore be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.

Note: the words “for all” - did not include the qualification “for all Catholics”

15. ... From the beginning, the community of believers has recognized in Jesus a salvific value such that he alone, as Son of God made man, crucified and risen, by the mission received from the Father and in the power of the Holy Spirit, bestows revelation (cf. Mt 11:27) and divine life (cf. Jn 1:12; 5:25-26; 17:2) to all humanity and to every person.

Note: the phrase “all humanity and to every person” - indicates everyone, not just Catholics

16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).

Note: Jesus and His Church (followers) are one - “I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing.” (John 15:1). “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28) The Church is Jesus Christ and His followers.

20. ...Above all else, it must be firmly believed 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 (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.78 The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”,79 since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.80 For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.

Note: The Holy Spirit comes to all men (other than Christians) in the form of grace making them part of the Body of Christ - ie. the Church, thereby availing to them, the gift of salvation albeit informally - ie. they are not “formally part of the Church”.

Conclusion:

There is no discrepancy between these two documents. Dominus Iesus shows that all men have the opportunity to be saved notwithstanding the seemingly contradictory statement made in Cantate Domino that no one can be saved unless they reside in the bosom of the Catholic Church.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 21, 2003

Answers

Bump.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 21, 2003.

I'm speechless! How can you say there is not discrepancy, when they obviously say two different things. And to set Dominus Iesus, a fallible document written by a cardinal, up against Cantate Domino, an infallible document written by the Vicar of Christ, and to try and say they mean the same thing. When they are contradictory to one another, which do you believe?

The Holy Spirit comes to all men (other than Christians) in the form of grace making them part of the Body of Christ

So you are saying the Holy Ghost will give them enough grace to save them, but not enough to give them the True Faith, even though it be God's will that all are part of the Catholic Church? That, too, is a contradiction in the will of God.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

This is kinda like the Protestants, who claim you must be born again to be saved, and when I tell them I am born again but still Catholic, they tell me I am not saved. Does not bother me at all.

I know some dissenting Catholics would disagree with me, but God decides who is a Catholic or not, and not them, and God can make an exception to his own rules, as he has, and the Catholic Church has agreed to it, by the example of baptism by fire, blood, faith, etc. If no exceptions existed then the Catholic Church is wrong, but I don't believe that's possible when it comes to such an important teaching. So then it's a question of interpretation.

Baptism by water is the ordinary means, but baptism by another means is an extra-ordinary means. Just like going to confession to a priest is an ordinary means, but if circumstances like ignorance existed, forgiveness can be achieved directly by extra-ordinary means.

I know the dissenting Catholics on the forum disagree with me, but like the Protestants telling me I am not saved, it does not bother me. As matter of fact, God's own priests and our Pope agree with me, proving that those who say otherwise are dissenters to the Catholic faith, and are new Protestants.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

"God decides who is a Catholic or not, and not them..."

But then a few sentences later:

"...those who say otherwise are dissenters to the Catholic faith, and are new Protestants."

You contradict yourself and break your own rule.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 21, 2003.

Gordon,

As matter of fact, God's own priests and our Pope agree with me,

Ah, but Catholic dogmas agree with me. :)

proving that those who say otherwise are dissenters to the Catholic faith, and are new Protestants.

But I can still be saved, right? Because Christ died for us *all*. :)

Even if one accepts Baptism of Blood or Desire, and not water only, these would be rare occasions. Meaning one actually has to die for the Catholic Faith (Blood) or desire to be baptized as Catholic (desire.) It does not mean that any Joe Schmo down the street, because he is a 'good guy' is automatically saved. If he had no desire to become Catholic, and did not die for the Catholic faith, then Baptism of Blood or Desire would not apply to him.

Besides, we have dogmas that say water is necessary for baptism, and that confession is necessary to remit sin. I have posted them for you before, should I do so again? Because to say otherwise would be to deny these dogmas. And that would make you Protestant. (But don't worry, because by your standards, you can be saved anyway.) When the ordinary Magisterium of the Church says something that is contrary to doctrines of the faith, you are obliged to reject it.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

This is the type of hyperbole and arrogance of the Church itself that drives Catholics away from it in droves. Imagine not being able to feel someone you love dearly is not going to be saved due to Man made Rules. "

This Catholic will attend attend ANY venue where people are gathered in His name as we are told " I shall be there. "This is the poppycock emminating from a group that is becoming rapidly outdated.

The Pope whom I think is the greatest gift to the Church currently is not of that opinion to my scant knowledge. As to Rattzinger his position and office has been renaimed for historically it was the Office Of The Inquisition.

The Church has fought tooth and nail against the education of the laity I refer here to the Gottenburg Press deemed a work of the devil in 1600's Paris.

The evolution of allowing the laity to understand and partake in their Church has been gradual. Sadly people like Ratzinger still want to hold the reins of power. The Church is likened to beautifully designated Roman War Chariot - sadly some fool put square wheels on it. So much energy utilized for such little forward motion.

Ludicrous to think anyone outside the " bosom " of the Church will not be saved. This is fundamentalist thinking at it's WORSE. Why does the word depostic come to mind I wonder??

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 21, 2003.

I am not posting this as something taking a position, but doesn't Jesus say when he was approched about a man not following Him, and yet casting out demons in His name in the Bible that "for he who is not against us is on our side." Luke 9:50?

I was once told that this applies to protestants. I could be wayyy off, as I am clearly not as schooled as many here, but this is how I had always seen my Christian brothers.

If I am completely wrong, why would Jesus say that about a non- follower?

-- Prose (arpeggio69@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.

This is a classic example of why Jesus had to install one Church to interpret that which He wanted to convey to mankind. In reading my post above, four individuals have come up with four different versions or interpretations of what I was saying.

The Church, in matters of faith and morals can teach in two ways: through the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church (through the Pope and through Ecumenical Councils - Encyclicals) and through the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church (through the Bishops in unison with the Holy Father in the everyday ongoing business of the Church). Magisterium means “teaching office”.As the Church is a rather large body corporate, founded by Christ, the Holy Father requires assistance in the government of it. This “governing body” which assists the sovereign pontiff is known as the Roman Curia.

The Roman Curia is comprised of numerous departments, ministries and branches which all belong to various sections of the governing bodies of the Church known as “Congregations”. All "Roman Congregations" are ultimately answerable to the Chair of Peter. Among the most important Congregations is the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith which is primarily responsible for teaching doctrine/dogma as defined by both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisteriums of the Church. Nothing is published by this Congregation that is does not bear the full endorsement of the Pope.

In creating the Declaration, Dominus Iesus, The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the teaching body of the Church, disclosed that it bore the full endorsement of Pope John Paul II, when at the end of the document it stated, “The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience of June 16, 2000, granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority, ratified and confirmed this Declaration, adopted in Plenary Session and ordered its publication. Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 6, 2000, the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord. Joseph Card. Ratingen Prefect”

Let there be no mistake this Declaration, Dominus Iesus, not only bears the full support, ratification and confirmation of the Holy Father, but was commissioned by him, while exercising his duties in the Chair of Peter, and as such, requires the assent of all Catholics.

Now, as to the apparent discrepancy between the two documents, Dominus Iesus and Cantate Domino, Dominus Iesus clearly stated that everyone outside the “bosom” of the Church is provided a mystical grace by the Holy Spirit allowing them to become “informal” members of the Body of Christ - which is the Church:

20. “...For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation...”

To correct any misconception that may have arisen, I am not saying this - the Church - the Body of Christ, through its teaching Congregation, with the full commission and endorsement of the Chair of Peter, has declared this.

-- Ed Lauzon (gfrader@accglobal.net), March 21, 2003.

Jmj

I commend you, Ed L, for this magnificent effort to share the unchanged and unchangeable truths of Catholic doctrine on salvation.

I don't know if you were expecting the opposition you have received (and will continue to receive) from people who have been misinformed on this topic. If you were not expecting it, I wish that I could have warned you about it in advance. There are several people regularly coming to the forum who don't have "orthodox" Catholic beliefs on this subject. You have heard from a couple, and the others will probably chime in. I know that you will not capitulate to their errors (which represent either heresy or dissent).

The single biggest problem they have is their misunderstanding of such documents as "Cantate Domino." It is for the present pope and his brother bishops to tell us what "Cantate Domino" means. It is not for mere laymen (or even priests) to try to decipher the meaning of complex, often archaic, sometimes ambiguous, language in old Church documents like "Cantate Domino."

The result of such dangerous lay/priestly experiments is (1) wrong interpretations, (2) dissent, (3) schism, (4) anger, and (5) intense bickering [such as here at the forum]. All this shows that the devil promotes, and is very pleased by, the actions of those who contradict Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, and the thousands of other orthodox Catholic bishops. [These poor misguided souls will even reject the teachings of Blessed Pope Pius IX, pope of Vatican I (around 1870).]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.

Thanks for the kind words John. While I was expecting some resistance to what I have stated, I did not anticipate that resistance would come from Catholics. But you know, if there is anything I've learned here in this forum over these past few weeks, it is that I shouldn't believe everyone is whom they declare themselves to be.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 21, 2003.

> "The single biggest problem they have is their misunderstanding of such documents as "Cantate Domino." It is for the present pope and his brother bishops to tell us what "Cantate Domino" means. It is not for mere laymen (or even priests) to try to decipher the meaning of complex, often archaic, sometimes ambiguous, language in old Church documents like "Cantate Domino.""

Thank you very much John! You put it in words far better than I could myself. I think the dissenters of the Catholic faith should meditate on those words, and stop playing Pope.

You either are union with Rome, or your not. Some of you have clearly indicated you are not in union with Rome.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

Ed, I should also thank you for your very BEAUTIFUL post. That was awesome, and makes me feel proud to be a Catholic, as what you stated is what the Catholic Church is all about. Dissenters, read what he said, and ponder on it. Stop dissenting against the Holy Father, by playing Pope yourself!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

Gordon...

What up? What about what I said?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 21, 2003.

You said that God alone decides who is Catholic, and then you said that I was not a Catholic.

It is as plain as day. Now I understand that you are certainly not of bad will, and hypocracy would be a very strong accusation to level against you... but let's call it material hypocracy if you will.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 21, 2003.

Ed

Thank you for a wonderfully informative, and relevant piece. It should hopefully go a long way to informing some of the people who don't seem to appreciate that the Church teaches that salvation is open to all, whether in full communion with the Church or not. It seems that some so-called 'Catholics' cannot actually accept what the magesterium is teaching, although at the same time they profess that they are real Catholics and that somehow others who embrace all Christians are not.

I pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten and guide each of us in our quest to attain eternal life, and that some day we may all meet in paradise...I bet there will be a lot of shocked faces there when we'bump into' those who aren't Catholics!

(My priest tells a joke about how a man dies and goes to heaven. He asks St Peter, who are those people over there in the corner? Peter says, those are the Methodists and the Presbyterians'. The man then says who are those people at the other end and Peter says 'Those are the Jews, and the Muslims'. The man again says......'why do you have that huge wall built there...I can't see in, the people can't see out, who are they?' and Peter says....... 'They are the Catholics, they think they're the only ones here!'

I pray that I get to meet my fellow-man, Catholics and non-Catholic in the eternal life.

God bless you all

Sara

-- Sara (Sara@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

As one of the dissenters, (you speak of), I will say exactly what you expect me (the protestant) to say. In a sense I am a protest-ant. I protest a great deal regarding some of the statements of the pope. He is not speaking ex-cathedra as Pope Egene, Boniace, Inocent, etc. They spoke ex-cathedra, so they cannot be challenged, but that does not stop the Modernists. They can twist the language to mean what they intend it to mean. Dominus Jesus is obviously not what those 3 popes meant. So the next tacticis to say that this pope cannot be bound by past popes, no matter how they declare it. "We will have our agenda no matter what"! And so it goes, the visible Church slowly melting like the "Wicked witch".

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

Again, I may be naive, but what about what Jesus said? Can someone please clarify this? You just said: "You either are union with Rome, or your not."

But Jesus said: "he who is not against us is on our side." Luke 9:50.

Which is right? Does the Church address this?

Just curious. Please don't attack me, I am just trying to learn and grow in my faith. Thanks.

-- Prose (arpeggio69@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.

Ed says: "...four individuals have come up with four different versions or interpretations of what I was saying."

Why are you saying anything at all? According to you, you're not supposed to be commenting on anything, and furthermore, nobody is supposed to be interpreting anything, especially if it is you that is saying it.

You do what you tell others not to do.

Gordon says: "I know some dissenting Catholics would disagree with me, but God decides who is a Catholic...

Why are you postulating anything at all? According to you, you're not supposed to be postulating at all, and furthermore, nobody is supposed to be agreeing or disagreeing with you at all, especially if it is you that is postulating it.

You do what you tell others not to do.

Gordon says: "God decides who is a Catholic or not, and not them...", but then says "...those who say otherwise are dissenters to the Catholic faith, and are new Protestants." Gordon has decided on his authority that Emerald is a Protestant and not a Catholic.

You do what you tell others not to do.

John says: "All this shows that the devil promotes, and is very pleased by, the actions of those who contradict Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, and the thousands of other orthodox Catholic bishops."

Sir, just how is it that you know what it is that the devil is strategizing? Fact is, you don't know what it is the devil is up to. Who are you to know what the devil is going on?

But more to the point, John, I don't think you have a leg to stand on seeing as how you most manifestly contradicted yourself when you defy our Pontiff in regards to military action against Iraq.

I'm putting my hands up to my ears and vigorously babbling la la la la la la until you either 1. agree with the Pope in this issue, or 2. admit that you have misconceptions about the nature of what it means to be loyal to the Holy Father and to the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.

Until then, you don't have a prayer of an argument.

You do what you tell others not to do.

Sara says: ...they profess that they are real Catholics and that somehow others who embrace all Christians are not.

Sara, I never said that Catholics who embrace all Christians are not Catholics. I don't know who it is you said that, but it wasn't me.

Some generalized statements:

"Emerald thinks he is holier than the Pope"

LIE.

"Emerald thinks he can decide who is damned and who isn't"

LIE.

"Emerald is a heretic"

LIE.

"Emerald is in schism"

LIE.

"Emerald rejects the authority of the Pope"

LIE.

"Emerald is a Protestant"

LIE.

Get away from me, Satan.

Haha! A little stronger than usual, but have fun with it.

Love you all.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 21, 2003.

"Emerald likes green eggs and ham."

LIE. I do not like green eggs and ham, I do not like them, Sam-I-Am.

:-)

All my best to all of you!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 21, 2003.

Let me tell you something. Some of these well known Catholic apologist I know personally or have known personally for a time in the past. I know K*arl K*eating personally and have for a long long time, before he was even well known. I knew the guy that wrote the Belly Button book, if you know what I mean, and I know some others.

Listen, I'm disappointed with the whole lot of them. I'm extremely disappointed. They put together their glossy magazines... slick little packages. I won't lay this condemnation on any one of them individually, but as a collective group they pat each other on the back and lay claims to great rewards for themselves in heaven for their apologetic endeavors.

I don't want anything to do with them. This doesn't look like Christ on the Cross to me, this looks like mammon. It seems to me the objective is to become a luminaries in the firmament of Catholic apologetics.

It's all about success and recognition. Every now and then when one comes along who wants to promote the truth of traditional Catholic Doctrine, and they have condemnation heaped upon them 24/7 and are roundly mocked, accused, slandered and marginalized. Just like Christ.

And get this... all by self appointed lay apologists who have received absolutely NO COMMISSION from the See of Peter to undertake the tasks they undertake in the manner and mode in which they do... with absolutely no official ecclesial office out of which arises any genuine authority. They write their own self-praising, self agrandizing promotional material and recommend themselves to the rest of us as being "orthodox". I've seen it.

Nonsense.

Talk about self appointment. Talk about self interpretation.

Why do I bring this up?

Hypocracy; manifest hypocracy. I believe these people are not doing the good they claim to be doing but instead are furthering the damage to the Mystical Body of Christ.

These places are where you guys are getting these bogus arguments, isn't it? What, do you think I have seen them? That I'm not privy to the arguments and where they come from?

What makes me the sickest to my stomach is that these apologists think that they can reason people into the Catholic Faith... that they can advertise people into the Faith with slick packaging... that they can strategize ways to convince people of their own self- interpreted Catholic Truth. Salvation comes through God, not men. God's ways are not men's ways.

What a back-asswards situation we have in the Church. This is a nightmare, when basic doctrine is rationalized away, cast before swine, trampled underfoot while others are crucified for daring to hold fast to doctrine and tradition and truth.

This is an abomination.

Let those who wish to save souls lay prostrate before the Son of God in the Blessed Sacrament and confess their own failures and weaknesses and lack of understanding and beg the Almighty Father for forgiveness and for the salvation of their fellow man.

Far better for them to lay prostrate in front of the Lamb than in their big fat mammon-soaked offices with all their honors and titles and fame and pomp.

"Those heretics who say there is no salvation outside the Church..." Wham! A nail in the left hand of Christ.

"Those schismatics that attend the Tridentine Rite..." Wham! Another nail into the right hand of Christ.

"Those people who think they are holier than the Pope..." Wham! A nail through the left foot of Christ.

"Those traditionalists, they aren't Catholic, they are Protestants..." Wham! Another nail through the right foot of Christ.

"There IS salvation outside the Church..." Wham! A spear in the side of Christ, out of which flowed blood and water.

Go ahead, crucify Christ.

Hypocrites.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 21, 2003.

Ed,

Let there be no mistake this Declaration, Dominus Iesus, not only bears the full support, ratification and confirmation of the Holy Father, but was commissioned by him, while exercising his duties in the Chair of Peter, and as such, requires the assent of all Catholics.

Providing it does not contradict previous dogmas and teachings of our faith.

everyone outside the “bosom” of the Church is provided a mystical grace by the Holy Spirit allowing them to become “informal” members of the Body of Christ - which is the Church:

Why have the Church then, if everyone gets salvation without it? And what a cruel God you describe who would withhold the grace of the True faith to do those truly deserving.

John,

It is for the present pope and his brother bishops to tell us what "Cantate Domino" means.

So I guess what the past popes have said on this is null and void, even though their statements were dogmatic. I guess they were not capable of "interpreting" what they themselves proclaimed.

It is not for mere laymen (or even priests) to try to decipher the meaning of complex, often archaic, sometimes ambiguous, language in old Church documents like "Cantate Domino."

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. 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 they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. "

Doesn't look archaic and ambiguous to me. (But of course, John would have you think so, otherwise his theory would be blown right out to of the water.) In fact, it's much easier to read than Shakespeare, and I always caught on to Shakespeare really quick. Also, there are many ambiguities in the documents of Vatican II, but John never wants to admit to any of those, because then he would have to admit the modernist influence of that council. But if something, such as quoted above, is just plain as day, and cannot really be taken to mean anything other than what it says, then suddenly the language is archaic and ambiguous.

Gordon,

You either are union with Rome, or your not.

According to you, since one can so easily be saved without being in union with Rome, that statement has no significance whatsoever.

Sara,

It seems that some so-called 'Catholics' cannot actually accept what the magesterium is teaching, although at the same time they profess that they are real Catholics

It seems that some so-called 'Catholics' cannot actually accept what the magisterium has infallibly pronounced, although at the same time the profess that they are real Catholics. Odd.

I bet there will be a lot of shocked faces there when we'bump into' those who aren't Catholics!

There will be alot of shocked faces, alright. But mostly because everyone will not be able to understand how they were so easily duped by modernist influence.

God Bless you all, you are in my thoughts and prayers.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

Mateo... my friend.

I just dropped a MOAB.

I hope you didn't get hurt... =)

We may disagree, but you are always close to my heart in the Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 21, 2003.

Hey Emerald,

I love you, man! No problems.

This may be slightly off topic, but I'd like to use this opportunity to give my opinion on the challenge for lay people that you brought up: "It's much more valuable to be part of a solution than simply to identify a problem."

A few weeks ago, I read the book, "Father Forgive Me, For I Am Frustrated." by Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ. It's light reading (no heavy theology), but it articulated the position that I hold with regard to today's Church.

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 21, 2003.

Thanks, Mateo; I'll look it up.

As long as I'm being sappy and arrogant, first I should say I love all of you. I really do.

Secondly, I am a hypocrite myself. I am a failure in all the ways in which I just accused other people.

I can't help myself; I cannot save myself. I absolutely cannot improve myself. I want to be immolated in Christ.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 21, 2003.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Q. 30. You said above that it is only OF LATE that that loose way of thinking and speaking about the necessity of true Faith, and of being in communion with the Catholic Church, which we have been examining, has appeared among the members of the Church; was not the same language held by Christians in all former ages? A. Far from it; and this is one of the greatest grounds of its condemnation. It is a novelty, it is a new doctrine; it was unheard of at the beginning; nay, it is directly opposite to the uniform doctrine of all the great lights of the Church in former ages. These great and holy men, the most exceptional witnesses of the Christian Faith in their days, knew no other language on the subject, but what they saw spoken before then by Christ and His Apostles, they knew their Divine Master had declared, "He that believeth not shall be damned," they heard His Apostle thundering out a dreadful anathema on anyone, though an angel from heaven, who should dare to alter the Gospel he had preached, (Gal. i. 8); they heard him affirming, in express terms, that "without faith it is impossible to please God," and they constantly held the same language. And, as they saw not the smallest surmise in scripture to make them think those who were out of the Church could be saved by invincible ignorance, that deceptious evasion is not so much

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

WOW, a couple posts by John and Ed Lauzon and the whole place goes to nuts! You guys must a hit a nerve or something.

Let's get a few things straight here:

I think it is up to God to decide whether you people are Catholics are not, even though I still believe you are dissenters from the faith, and you are Protestants, in that you are protesting against the faith.

I NEVER said that you guys are not saved, and people like Isabel are putting words in my mouth. I really do believe you guys are sincere in you faith, but you are also wrong. You would have me choose you over God's Church, and I will never do that.

I know I can talk to you guys till I am blue in the face, and you will never accept God's Church as it is today, and that's too bad for you. Working to bring down God's Church is a sin. So stop doing it.

You think God wants all this division? Remember what Saint Paul said, to stop your bickering and get together and worship God, and yet some of you refuse to step in a Catholic Church today.

Like I said, think long and hard on what Ed and John have shared here.

About hypocrites, recently I heard about someone who did not want anything to do with religion, because she said, religion is full of hypocrites, and this person was told, there is always room for one more. We are all hypocrites, as no one is perfect.

Stop calling yourself traditionalists, as any true traditionalist knows that obeying the Pope is one of the strongest traditions in the Catholic faith, and you guys make it quite clear that you are dissenters of our current Pope. You can't dissent against the Pope when it comes to Church teaching.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

Whenever I see Isabel write, "I'm speechless" on salvation threads I am thankful. Unfortunately this loss of voice did not impact on her ability to use a keyboard; nevertheless we’ve heard it all before from her and anyone with half a noodle can see the truth. Fantastic stuff, you are a scholar and a gentleman Mr Lauzon, Bravo!

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.

Like I said, think long and hard on what Ed and John have shared here.

I already have. What, you think this is new to me? Ed and John know as much as I do and vice versa.

From the Syllabus of Errors, Pope Pius IX. Remember, these are condemned errors, so what is stated below is the opposite of the truth. These are condemned errors:

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.— Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.— Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

17. 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.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.—Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.

But Gordon, you say:

"Stop calling yourself traditionalists, as any true traditionalist knows that obeying the Pope is one of the strongest traditions in the Catholic faith...

No, and no kidding.

"...and you guys make it quite clear that you are dissenters of our current Pope."

No, we dissent against heresy, where ever it comes from. God only knows why our Catholic doctrines are being compromised.

"You can't dissent against the Pope when it comes to Church teaching."

No kidding.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 21, 2003.

You may or may not be persuaded by this, but John Henry Newman said the following re this very topic:

"The teaching and assistance of the Church does not supply all conceivable needs, but those which are ordinary; thus, for instance, the sacraments are necessary for dying in the grace of God and hope of heaven; yet when they cannot be got, acts of faith, hope, and contribution, with the desire for those aids which the dying man has not, will convey in substance what those aids ordinarily convey. And so a Catechumen, not yet baptized, may be saved by his purpose and preparation to receive the rite. And so, again, though 'Outside the Church there is no salvation,', this does not hold in the case of good men who are in invincible evidence."

J.H. Newman, "The Allegiance of Catholics and The Primacy of Conscience"

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.

Why should anyone follow the Catholic faith if you guys are saying it's contradicting itself?

Either the faith is wrong or you guys are wrong in your interpretation of those past Church pronouncements!

I would no longer accept your interpretation then I would accept the Protestants who claim we Catholics are not following the Bible, because we don't accept their interpretation of it. There is no difference here. You are Protestants with different interpretations, for God's Church cannot be wrong on these matters. I see arguing with you guys is like arguing with the Biblical Protestants, as no matter what we say, you are set in your ways.

What I don't understand is why are there so many of you guys on this Catholic forum, as should you not be at some other forum called "True Catholic forum"? This is the forum for modern Catholics who don't dissent against the Vicar of Christ.

Tradition is meaningless, if you don't obey the authority of the current Pope. You can say "no kidding" to that also, but you obviously don't agree.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

"What I don't understand is why are there so many of you guys on this Catholic forum, as should you not be at some other forum called "True Catholic forum"? This is the forum for modern Catholics who don't dissent against the Vicar of Christ."

I was sent here by Satan because he was running out of warehouse space and needed room for a remodel.

After all, I'm trying to destroy Christ's Church, right?

Geez... lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 21, 2003.

I would apologize for burdening you with this topic, Christine, but you have to admit... I didn't bring it up this time, right? lol!

If you ever get insomnia, let me know, and I'll post a thread on the topic.

Just teasing.

But really, look at the header:

Subject: Outside the Church There is no Salvation

I mean, you might as well get a giant fishing hook and put a keg on it. Of course I'll bite! =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 21, 2003.

"This is the forum for "Modern Catholics" who don't dissent against the pope"

That is where the trouble lies... Modern Catholics.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

A long time ago on another thread JFG said something like "it is unknown who will enter heaven. some will be more in need of God's mercy to do so than others." I like this, it feels like a fairmidned admittance of only-thru-the-glass-darkly knowledge.

This has been thrashed out a bit in a tread I started, but it may as well be done here without my thread's interferance.

Jesus said both "Those who are not with me are against me" and the passage quoted here meaning that those who are neutral but trying are with me. This is confusing.

So much of what is being said here has been said by protestant groups about all other groups, naturally including the Catholic Church. I would rather be an open hearted inclusionist than the other way. My view of the real threat is the agnostic and athest groups.

What was that joke arguement? Since many more than 2 Christian groups say if you are not of our kind you are going to Hell, then you must be going there anyway.

Well the joke is in poor spirits, but that is my view of the attitude of If you are not with us you are destined for Hell.

John, last time you stilled this with a multi question that I would have liked to see the answer to. What happened?

I do not believe I have insulted anyone, If you feel so, I did not intend it. I believe i have acted according to the forum's rules.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), March 21, 2003.

Hi Sean.

I don't know about any of the others, but you didn't insult me. Even Gordon didn't insult me when he claims I am a Protestant. Gordon is alright with me.

It doesn't matter, because I think I'm right about this, because I think the Church is right about it, and that it is the true teaching of the Church, that there is no salvation outside it.

People think this points to a judgemental, uncompromising and harsh God. I say that they are not understanding the true Mercy of God.

People say that there are people who, not of their own fault, can be deprived of the means of salvation. I say that the people who think this are applying the limitations of the human mind on the infinite mercy and ways & means of God, who can accomplish all things according to His will.

People say I'm not following the Pope. I say that things have occurred in the guise of what requires assent, that do not actually require assent as stated, but in fact, are contrary to the teaching of the Church.

Gordon thinks the Faith is contradicting itself, according to my view. What I'm saying is actually the opposite, that the Faith cannot contradict itself.

I'm not going to change my mind, because I know it is right.

I'm on dry ground, because according to the opposition, I can still be saved.

Also, I'm pretty much in a win-win situation, because if I'm wrong, no doubt these good people will drop to their knees and pray for the salvation of one heretic soul named Emerald.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 21, 2003.

Unfortunately this loss of voice did not impact on her ability to use a keyboard

While the tongue is tied, the fingers do the walking... :) If one day I ever get to make it to New Zealand to see where Lord of the Rings was filmed, we'll have to meet. You will see I am never quite as speechless as many would like. And I never tire of defending the truth.

Why should anyone follow the Catholic faith if you guys are saying it's contradicting itself?

Because it has all the Truth. Only we must weed out those new interpretations trying to defile the truth.

Either the faith is wrong......

The true faith is never wrong. Again, we must just weed out modernist interpretations.

for God's Church cannot be wrong on these matters

There we agree. But man can be wrong, if he is not open to the Holy Spririt.

What I don't understand is why are there so many of you guys on this Catholic forum, as should you not be at some other forum called "True Catholic forum"?

But then we would not have a chance to spread the truth to those who lack it.

"This is the forum for modern Catholics who don't dissent against the Vicar of Christ." [The phrase is yours, Gordon. The emphasis is mine. Do you see how ironic that is, when it is modernism that has infected the faithful with this heresy.]

Working to bring down God's Church is a sin.

But don't you see, we are working to bring truth. To keep the faith whole and undefiled. To believe as our Church fathers believed. To hold fast to dogma and doctrine. Can you not see how you are outright denying doctrine? You choose what this current pope says, what if the next pope says the opposite on this issue? What is the next pope claims your stance to be heresy? Will you then believe? Or will you call him a heretic? You cannot (are obliged) to reject anything contrary to doctrines of the faith, even if it comes from a pope, sad as it is. I pray for our Pope and wish him eternal salvation, just as I do everyone here.

You can't dissent against the Pope when it comes to Church teaching.

Unless it is against the Deposit of Faith. We must remain obedient and subservient to our Supreme Pontiff, in all that he holds fast to the Deposit of Faith.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

I must retire soon, but before I do, I must give you this.

Here is an interesting quote from St. Vincent of Lerins

"true and genuine Catholic…places nothing else ahead of the faith, neither the authority, the genius, the eloquence, nor philosophy of any man whatsoever, but is determined to hold and believe only those things whatsoever he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times. But whatsoever he shall perceive to have been introduced later by some one certain man, that which is new and unheard-of, that which is contrary to all the saints, let him know that it does not pertain to religion but rather to temptation."

And from the First Vatican Council:

We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, is by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.

More from the first Vatican Council:

…the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity; but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence, also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy Mother the Church has once declared; nor is that meaning ever to departed from, under the pretence or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.

If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.

All I want is for all to have the truth. That's it. It's not even about winning an 'argument'. It's just about Truth.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

> "modern Catholics"

A term I used to mean that those who follow the current Pope. If you have a problem with that, then that is your problem.

> "Unless it is against the Deposit of Faith. We must remain obedient and subservient to our Supreme Pontiff, in all that he holds fast to the Deposit of Faith."

You are dissenting against the current Pope, and that is wrong. Pope John Paul II is in completely conformity with the Catholic faith.

Don't forget he is the Vicar of Christ, and you are not. That is the biggest issue here, and why I will never follow you dissenters.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 22, 2003.

Gordon, What you are saying is a classic example of Papolotry. It seems like a harsh word, but that is exactly what it is. "My pope is incapable of error, no matter wha he says".

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 22, 2003.

> "My pope is incapable of error, no matter wha he says"

I never said that Ed, and I don't believe in that. If the Pope starting saying Abortion was OK, then I would disagree with that, but the Pope would never say that. The Pope cannot change God's laws, but he can decide on Church law, as I have already pointed out to you.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 22, 2003.

"Indeed we declare, we say, we pronounce, and we define that it is wholly necessary to salvation to every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The Lateran, November 14, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter."

Firstly, we see the string of words "Indeed we declare, we say, we pronounce, and we define". All Catholic theologians agree that this sort of thing in a doctrinal document indicates an intention to make an ex cathedra definition; that is why it is done - to clearly manifest such an intention. Further, he says that he is defining and it is clearly a doctrinal matter of the Faith which he is defining, not a disciplinary matter. He also uses the papal "We", indicating that he is employing his full papal authority, which is necessary for a definition. And he concludes by saying that he is giving this teaching as "a perpetual memorial of this matter": it is teaching given for all generations; it is permanent. He is given it universal promulgation.

Quite simply, no Catholic theologian has ever disputed that any of these definitions, those of the Councils or that of Unam Sanctam, are ex cathedra.

Gordon, the above is an ex-cathedra statement. Do you challenge it?

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 22, 2003.

Hi Isabel , If you or any of the other forum members do get to NZ it would be my pleasure to meet you and help show off this wonderful little country of ours :-).

I dont want to get back into yet another argument with you folks on this issue, it seems so clear cut to me. Ill leave the salvation arguments to those with a better understanding then me like Mr Lauzon.

I can see how contidctions occur if you interpret past encylicals yourself. Ill leave the explanation and clarification of past Papal documents to the current Vicar of Christ and he is quite clear on this issue.

I honestly feel a bit upset in a sad way when I read of Emeralds, Jakes and your own position on this because I know that generally you are orthodox Catholics but accept I also have difficulties on certain aspects of our Church's teaching.

In Christ

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 22, 2003.

That is the biggest issue here, and why I will never follow you dissenters.

I would never dream of asking you to follow me. I am not worth following. But you must follow the teachings of the Church. So let me post this again with emphasis where needed.

"true and genuine Catholic…places nothing else ahead of the faith, neither the authority, the genius, the eloquence, nor philosophy of any man whatsoever, but is determined to hold and believe only those things whatsoever he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times. But whatsoever he shall perceive to have been introduced later by some one certain man, that which is new and unheard-of, that which is contrary to all the saints, let him know that it does not pertain to religion but rather to temptation."

And from the First Vatican Council:

We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, is by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.

More from the first Vatican Council:

…the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity; but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence, also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy Mother the Church has once declared; nor is that meaning ever to departed from, under the pretence or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.

If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.

Now can anyone really argue against infallible pronouncements?

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 22, 2003.

Outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation. I don't take this to mean that a Hindu, Muslim, Protestant, or Pagan cannot be saved, but rather, he is saved through the graces and merits of Jesus Christ, and the One True Church, which He founded.

Do you think only Catholics are in Purgatory, for instance? When we pray for the poor souls, we may be praying for zillions of souls who never had the opportunity to receive the Sacraments nor learn the Truths of the Catholic Faith. Yet through our prayers and sacrifices, (Rather, the graces from our prayers, sacrifices, and sacraments) more souls might be saved than any of us could imagine.

More wonders are wrought with prayer...

Pax Christi.

P.S. (If this is in contradiction with anything Holy Mother Church teaches, please correct me!!!!)

-- Anna <>< (flowerofthehour@hotmail.com), March 22, 2003.

Dear Anna,

Your perception is perfectly in line with Holy Mother Church's current interpretation of its own teaching. It is pitiful to see people not only dredging up 14th century documents when they have wonderful current documents that are equally valid and much clearer in meaning; but worse, insisting that we apply antiquated interpretation to those same teachings, ignoring seven centuries of the Holy Spirit's ongoing work of illumination and revelation through the scholars, theologians, and Maguisterium of the Church. No - not ongoing Revelation of doctrine! But ongoing revelation of the deeper meaning of existing doctrine, and its proper application within the life of the Church. This is what Jesus meant when He said "when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you to all truth" (John 16:13). The quoting of doctrine is something any child can do; but the understanding of doctrine is an ongoing process of interaction between God and His Church, that will not cease until time itself ceases. The doctrines of the Church are so profound, so all- encompassing, that merely taking them at simplistic face value deprives the Church of most of their meaning. God, after all, is the author of these doctrines. Mere men could study them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit for centuries, as they have, and never reach the fullness of the truth they contain. And so the Church still teaches that "outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation". That will never change. It cannot. It is divine truth. But the Church's fuller understanding of that truth, which is precisely as you described it, is so much more in line with what we know of God's justice, love, and goodness than the simplistic interpretations of centuries past. Thank God for the Magisterium, and it's openness to the ongoing work of the Spirit!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 22, 2003.

Anna,

I don't take this to mean that a Hindu, Muslim, Protestant, or Pagan cannot be saved, but rather, he is saved through the graces and merits of Jesus Christ, and the One True Church, which He founded.

This is the dogma as proclaimed by the Church, which must be believed in its entirety:

Indeed we declare, we say, we pronounce, and we define that it is wholly necessary to salvation to every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

And this:

The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. 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 they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

And to believe otherwise would be heresy, because of these infallible statements:

…the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity; but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence, also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy Mother the Church has once declared; nor is that meaning ever to departed from, under the pretence or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.

If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.

Do you see what those two infallible statements have just said? That, NEVER, is the meaning of the dogmas of the Church to change to be different than how they were originally proclaimed, even under the pretence of 'deeper comprehension' or 'progess of knowledge'. To do so would be heresy.

God Bless You!

Paul,

Your perception is perfectly in line with Holy Mother Church's current interpretation of its own teaching.

Let me post that again:

the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity; but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence, also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy Mother the Church has once declared; nor is that meaning ever to departed from, under the pretence or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.

If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.

when they have wonderful current documents that are equally valid

You are equating an infallible doctrine, with a current *fallible* interpretation. One would wish and hope for them to always be the same, but when they are not, you must choose the infallible doctrine.

insisting that we apply antiquated interpretation to those same teachings, ignoring seven centuries of the Holy Spirit's ongoing work of illumination and revelation through the scholars, theologians, and Maguisterium of the Church.

Oh, goodness, maybe you missed it the first few times, so let me post that again and remember these are infallible teachings of the Church:

the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity; but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence, also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy Mother the Church has once declared; nor is that meaning ever to departed from, under the pretence or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.

If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.

Then you write:

But ongoing revelation of the deeper meaning of existing doctrine, and its proper application within the life of the Church.

Should I post those two paragraphs again? Please read what I have posted above, and contemplate what it means. It is really so easy to understand, that my third grade son reads this and gets it. The Church never meant for these doctrines to be as complex as what you make them. They declared, proclaimed, professed, quite plainly what it is the Church believes for all to see. No hidden meanings attached. It just is.

God Bless you, as well.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 22, 2003.

"the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity"

A: Obviously! Human ingenuity has nothing to do with it. It is the ongoing inspiration of the Holy Spirit working through the Church. Furthermore, it is not teh doctrine that is perfected over time, but only our understanding and appreciation of it.

"Hence, also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy Mother the Church has once declared"

A: Correct. And as I already stated, the declared doctrine itself, which reads "Outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation", will indeed be perpetually retained. But hopefully we will not be stuck with a primitive, undeveloped sense of its deeper truth.

"nor is that meaning ever to departed from, under the pretence or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them"

A: Correct. But the fact that we cannot depart from a given meaning under the PRETENCE of deeper comprehension does not mean that GENUINE growth in comprehension may not reveal deeper meaning of the doctrine as perceived by the Magisterium. Otherwise we would not know any more about our faith than the Apostles did. Indeed, the very definition of this doctrine was the result of centuries of development of its meaning through intensive study and divine enlightenment. Should this process then halt, just because the Church finally defined the basic doctrine?

"If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema"

A: Please note that this equates what the Church HAS UNDERSTOOD, and what the Church NOW UNDERSTANDS, meaning that they are one and the same, which is exactly the point! To reject a doctrine, past or present, is to reject that doctrine BOTH past and present. But, to reject the interpretations of the doctrine which the Church now understands, in favor of what the Church once understood, is simply to hold onto an uneducated, undeveloped, simplistic sense of the doctrine. The doctrine which the Church once held MUST by definition agree with the doctrine it now holds. The Holy Spirit does not allow it to be otherwise. Therefore there CANNOT be conflict between the Church's infallible doctrine of past centuries and its infallible doctrine of today. They are one and the same! Therefore, any changes in understanding which do occur MUST, by definition, represent growth in accurate interpretation, not doctrinal content.

"You are equating an infallible doctrine, with a current *fallible* interpretation. One would wish and hope for them to always be the same, but when they are not, you must choose the infallible doctrine"

A: On the contrary, I still accept the doctrine "Outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation", just as absolutely as it was accepted when first defined. It is you who are confusing this simple statement of infallible doctrine with the various fallible explanations and interpretations, PAST AND PRESENT, that have been promulgated. The statement "pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can never be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire" is NOT an infallible statement. It is NOT a statement of doctrine. It is an INTERPRETATION of an infallible doctrine, and such interpretations do not carry the status of infallible teaching like the defined doctrines they describe. One can know this, even if one is not conversant with doctrinal hermeneutics, by the simple fact that the church's understanding in this area HAS evolved and broadened, something that doctrine content itself CANNOT do!

"the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity; but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared"

A: Let me say it again. The doctrine "Outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation" is still faithfully kept and infallibly declared, just as it always was! Only the understanding of its deeper meaning has been [partially] perfected, a process which will continue until the end of time.

"Hence, also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy Mother the Church has once declared; nor is that meaning ever to departed from, under the pretence or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them"

A: Again, the key words here are "pretence and pretext". The Magisterium does not propose heightened understanding of doctrine under any pretence, but only by valid inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they alone are qualified to define which developments in interpretation are of the Spirit. Protestant changes in the essential meaning of doctrine (The Eucharist is merely symbolic; infants cannot be baptized) are changes under pretext and pretence.

"It is really so easy to understand, that my third grade son reads this and gets it. The Church never meant for these doctrines to be as complex as what you make them"

A: My goodness, that's almost a direct quote from Luther. Of course he was speaking of the Bible, not Magisterial teachings. Still, if it is so simple, I wonder why God gave us the Magisterium and the Church at all. Why didn't He just give us each a copy of the book and let us decide for ourselves!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 22, 2003.

Paul,

Your whole post wreaked of Modernism. That is exactly what St. Pius X warned against. You have tried to explain away the obvious. You have just taken two very blatant, clear infallible statements and tried to twist them to your liking to justify your belief. Satan deceives with partial truth. Wow! I am sorry. I pray you will soon see the truth.

Still, if it is so simple, I wonder why God gave us the Magisterium and the Church at all.

Because it is not simple to always see the truth on one's own. But once the Church has defined, declared, said, professed, proclaimed, then it is simple to understand, because they define, declare, say, profess, and proclaim, exactly what they mean.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 22, 2003.

This has been a most interesting thread. I have been particularly impressed with the posts by Ed Lauzon, Paul and John as well as Anna and Kiwi. Isabel's posts render me speechless, quite a feat, but it does happen occasionally :-) Incidentally, Isabel, if your third grade child truly does read that and understand it then you ought to have him tested for mensa, he's obviously a bit of a genius!

I had a thought earlier, if it weren't for ladies like Anna on here I would say that I ALMOST agreed with St Paul in 1 cor 14 34:35, when he said...'As in all the Churches of God's holy people, women are to remain quiet in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak: theirs is a subordinate part, as the law itself says. If there is anything they want to know they shoudl ask their husbands at home. It is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly'

or again when he said in 1 Tm 11:15... 'During instruction a woman should be quiet and respectful. I give no permission for a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. A woman ought to be quiet, because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards, and it was not Adam that was led astray but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin. Nevertheless, she will be saved by child bearing, provided she lives a sensible life and is in constant faith and love and holiness.'

Mind you, taking Isabel's theory to its logical conclusion we should all only believe what the early Church taught us, since they were surely the ORIGINAL MAGISTERIUM??

Maybe one of the men could enlighten me on this?

Peace be with you all

Sara :-)))

-- Sara (Sara@yahoo.com), March 22, 2003.

Sara,

It seems people have a really hard time with this because they hate the thought of any 'good man' going to hell. But since blatant & obvious doctrine is so easy for most to just explain away, then there is really not much anyone can say, unless, of course, they speak what it is you want to hear.

But maybe next time Emerald comes around, being he is a man and all, you might listen to what he has to say. He is a staunch defender of truth. Even when the truth is hard to swallow, it is still worth having.

But I may ask you a question: If women are to remain silent, why then do you post here at all? And I don't mean that in an uncharitable way, just wondering why any woman who posts that would find it OK to post on a forum at all. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with the authority of man, the subservience of women. But I also think that no woman saint would have sat by and listened to heresy, without trying to impart the truth, for the good of souls.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 22, 2003.

Oh, dear, rereading that, it seems I was trying to equate myself with women saints. Heaven forbid! That certainly was not my intention, as I am no way near the level of holiness and sanctity these women had.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 22, 2003.

Sara, you've made an excellent observation proving Paul's point. Isabel, I believe Sara was speaking with her tongue firmly planted in her cheek. I believe she was using satire to get her point across.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 22, 2003.

Ed

Yes, my tongue was planted so firmly in my cheek that my jaw is aching!!!

Isabel, being subserviant has never been my forte, as my beloved man would tell you!:-)

Peace be with you all

Sara

-- Sara (Sara@yahoo.com), March 22, 2003.

"once the Church has defined, declared, said, professed, proclaimed, then it is simple to understand, because they define, declare, say, profess, and proclaim, exactly what they mean"

A: Yes, they do! And no less so today than in centuries past. So why reject what the Church declares, professes and proclaims to us today, after centuries of study and growth, in preference for the interpretations the Church professed and proclaimed in the distant past, without the benefit of such scholarship and experience? Do you think the Magisterium of the Church is incapable of learning?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 22, 2003.

Hi Sara. I sound kind of harsh sometimes when I debate, so beforehand, please don't take it the wrong way, o.k.? This is my way I guess, and I don't know another way. My mother and sisters have all slapped me upside the head to no avail, for almost 37 years now. Nothing has worked.

”Isabel's posts render me speechless, quite a feat…”

All she did was pretty much quote Ex Cathedra statements from previous pontiffs, so in that sense, I think with the speechlessness and all you’re pretty much on the right track. =)

About St. Paul, you ask:

”Maybe one of the men could enlighten me on this?”

Not really… it was pretty clear. What part seems unclear? Think about the word assembly; then think priests, cardinals, bishops and pontiffs. And sometimes altar boys.

But this place? This forum? Lol! Hell, this hardly qualifies as an official assembly of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. Isabel, doctrinal amazon warrior-queen, gets to stay.

But you never did get around to saying what it is that Isabel says that renders you speechless. So in a way, one is at a loss to figure out what the nature of your objection is besides just, well, not liking what she said. Or whatever. I think that’s about the sum of it.

…which is pretty much what Isabel picked up when she says:

"It seems people have a really hard time with this because they hate the thought of any 'good man' going to hell. But since blatant & obvious doctrine is so easy for most to just explain away, then there is really not much anyone can say, unless, of course, they speak what it is you want to hear."

Here’s the problem with the way people approach this whole question. You are most likely thinking that Isabel is consigning people to Hell. That never was the question. Why? Remember that unfortunate little incident called The Fall of Mankind? According to Roman Catholicism, it renders us incapable of salvation and worthy of eternal damnation, and is carried through to subsequent generations by original sin. That is, until Christ comes, establishes His Church by His blood, and sets for the way of salvation.

So it never has been about consigning people to Hell. I never, ever let anyone tell me that because of what I believe that I’m deciding who is going to Hell. Why? Because it isn’t true. It’s a strawman argument. I'm not doing that.

What it really is about how people can obtain eternal life. How dare anyone claim that it is about deciding who goes to Hell when it is about how one can achieve eternal life.

Not one of us deserves eternal life because of original sin alone, let alone the actual sins we heap on top of our miserable condition.

But it seems we are afraid of offending people, so we make up ways for people to "go to heaven" in our imaginations because they are "good". That's completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the way of salvation instituted by Christ.

So when Ed says ”Sara, you've made an excellent observation proving Paul's point.’ I say, I don’t think so, man. Maybe try again.

Paul says: Human ingenuity has nothing to do with it. It is the ongoing inspiration of the Holy Spirit working through the Church. Furthermore, it is not teh doctrine that is perfected over time, but only our understanding and appreciation of it.

Paul, that is absolutely not the situation we have here. We have a change in doctrine. This real-time Holy Spirit influence is not a good representation of how the Holy Spirit works at all. There's your so-called spirit of Vatican II that propels those silly progressives. There is a proposed change in doctrine here. It is so much of a change that went people are presented with the older texts (you’ve seen them plenty), they simply write them off. They don’t even take the time to understand this weird new understanding… they just blow the old ones off, and then glare and steam at you. It’s kind of humorous, actually.

Paul says: ”And as I already stated, the declared doctrine itself, which reads "Outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation", will indeed be perpetually retained. But hopefully we will not be stuck with a primitive, undeveloped sense of its deeper truth.”

Modernism. There was absolutely nothing primitive or undeveloped about those previous declaration. In fact, it is a private interpretation of yours, Paul, that these are to be viewed as primitive and undeveloped. Pure and simple. The church has never stated that anything it has said in the past was “primitive” and “undeveloped”. That’s just not true… that would be completely foreign to Catholic thinking. In fact, that very notion has been condemned by previous Pontiffs.

"But the fact that we cannot depart from a given meaning under the PRETENCE of deeper comprehension does not mean that GENUINE growth in comprehension may not reveal deeper meaning of the doctrine as perceived by the Magisterium."

Maybe so, but this issue of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Solus ain’t one of them, my friend. First we have no salvation outside the Church, and then we have salvation outside the Church under the PRETENCE of subsistence, in direct conflict with the archetypical ARK of salvation.. All who were outside the Ark perished. This is most certainly a pretence.

Otherwise we would not know any more about our faith than the Apostles did.

We don’t, really.

"Indeed, the very definition of this doctrine was the result of centuries of development of its meaning through intensive study and divine enlightenment."

If so, bummer all that work is getting hacked to death in the interest of formulating the synthesis of all heresies and the rendering of the Cross of Christ void.

Should this process then halt, just because the Church finally defined the basic doctrine?

Yeah. That’s what the dogmatic definitions are all about. Btw, the dogmatic definitions put an end to things disputed; they are not sources of "new doctrine", even "new doctrines" that people insist are not new doctrines. Like this issue. "But, to reject the interpretations of the doctrine which the Church now understands, in favor of what the Church once understood, is simply to hold onto an uneducated, undeveloped, simplistic sense of the doctrine."

Paul, these “new understandings” are proposed in the Second Vatican council, and you know full well that this council was not a dogmatic council. These “new understandings” are not doctrines, and since they contradict the understanding of the Church throughout the ages, we are absolutely not required to hold them as doctrine. By your own admission, what is now is different and what was before is primitive. They most clearly contradict what comes before. It is unmistakable.

The doctrine which the Church once held MUST by definition agree with the doctrine it now holds. The Holy Spirit does not allow it to be otherwise.

That, Paul, is the reason why the Holy Spirit does not allow this newer understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla solus to come to us in the form of a dogmatic statement, a dogmatic definition, an act of the Supreme Magisterium. It never has, and it never will, because the Holy Spirit guides and protects his Church. You and I have the same first name, Paul. We are under the name of The Evangelist. This new understanding hinders our efforts of evangelization.

"Therefore there CANNOT be conflict between the Church's infallible doctrine of past centuries and its infallible doctrine of today."

Right. But today's take on the matter is not doctrine, and, it is not infallible. Ultimately, this new understanding will fall by the wayside where it belongs. Off to either side of the narrow path of salvation. Someday in the future, they are going to wonder why in God's name this was allowed to happen.

"They are one and the same!" Well Paul, they aren’t. "Therefore, any changes in understanding which do occur MUST, by definition, represent growth in accurate interpretation, not doctrinal content." No, what it represents is modernism choking the Church. Why are you talking about interpretation and doctrine as if they are two separate entities? If they are, it's weeds and wheat. The truth of the matter is that we don't need an interpretations. Dogmatic definitions are interpretations in and of themselves. What need have we of interpretations of interpretations? When the people on the forum discuss the matter, we then have interpretations of interpretations of interpretations of doctrines. Ever play "pass it on"? lol. Not at all like the apostolic kind of "pass it on". The end results are quite dissimiliar.

"The statement "pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can never be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire" is NOT an infallible statement. It is NOT a statement of doctrine. It is an INTERPRETATION of an infallible doctrine…”

What? Come on Paul, you’re a deacon, and so you ought to be familiar with the prefacing words opening up to an infallible statement. That’s a full on dogmatic statement. You know that.

"…and such interpretations do not carry the status of infallible teaching like the defined doctrines they describe."

Look what you just said. "Such interpretations do not carry the status of infallible teaching". Check it out; by your own admission, I don’t have to believe this “new interpretation” of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I knew it I knew it I knew it! lol. "One can know this, even if one is not conversant with doctrinal hermeneutics, by the simple fact that the church's understanding in this area HAS evolved and broadened, something that doctrine content itself CANNOT do!"

That makes absolutely no sense! lol. None! You are separating out Church understandings and Church Doctrines and treating them like separate entities. This is modernism at its finest; like cancer cells almost. When you hear something like "the church's understanding in this area HAS evolved and broadened", run like the wind.

"Let me say it again. The doctrine "Outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation" is still faithfully kept and infallibly declared, just as it always was!"

I knew I was good for something. Hey, what do you mean 'still infallibly declared'; did the Pope recently make a dogmatic definition or restatement? I didn't see that. You did say infallibly declared, right? That means something very specific. I have not seen that done in my lifetime.

”Only the understanding of its deeper meaning has been [partially] perfected, a process which will continue until the end of time.”

It isn’t “deeper”. It is “other”. This “other” is not doctrine. This “other” is modernist error. This “process” you speak of is The Process, something which escapes the notice of most but is a very real thing, and at the very center of the fury. The Process needs to be stopped, and it will be.

"My goodness, that's almost a direct quote from Luther. Of course he was speaking of the Bible, not Magisterial teachings."

Not a good argument. I have arms and legs and a brain just like Luther, and I eat and sleep and work just like Luther did… oh my goodness, I’m a apostate and a heretic. Lol! When all else fails, call Isabel a Protestant. She shouldn't worry about it, because it certainly isn't the truth. Still, if it is so simple, I wonder why God gave us the Magisterium and the Church at all.

To safeguard and protect doctrine. Which they haven’t been doing lately. They’ve been busy doing other things. Have you noticed? I have.

"So why reject what the Church declares, professes and proclaims to us today…"

Paul, when was the last Ex Cathedra statement? Those words are prefacing words for a forthcoming infallible dogmatic definition. You’re a deacon, you should know this stuff. They haven’t used that sort of preface in a long, long time. May they’ll dust them off and solve this issue for us once and for all. Instead of all these pastoral headaches and confusions.

Now for Anna. Anna, I will absolutely not point a sword at you. You hit the nail on the head when you talked about praying for the salvation of others, and partaking in the Cross of Christ and suffering for others. Imho, this is the only answer to these questions that the Almighty God really wants to hear, because it is the only real answer.

All I would say Anna, is that when we pray for people's salvation, people come into the Church, sometimes in the very surprising and comforting way in which you described your uncle in another thread where you said:

Two years ago, my uncle died... Through the many graces of his spouse's prayers, the sufferings... he was properly disposed to receive the Sacraments... The priest baptized, gave First Holy Communion, Confirmation, and Annointing of the Sick, all in that one first--and last--visit! ...After more than 70 years on earth, he entered the Church...and eternity...as pure as a newly baptized baby!

So keep doing what you are doing, Anna. Don't listen to me; you don't need me, you just need to keep praying for the salvation of souls like you have been. It is the will of God and it works to the benefit and edification of mystical Body of Christ.

Baptism and the Eucharist lies at the heart of this controversy; Baptism and the Eucharist is what is a stake in this debate. The salvation of souls is at stake.

I will not be moved from what I know to be the doctrine of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, so help me God. I call upon St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine and St. Benedict, and the Mother of God for understanding and truth.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 22, 2003.

Emerald

In my line of work I speak to people with opinions like you and Isabel every day, sometimes it's the bane of my life. However, I understand that these people are well-meaning if somewhat misunderstanding of the Catholic Faith. Like yourself they do claim to be Catholic, albeit ignoring the Magisterium of the Church whilst they do so. Nothing that anyone, bishop, clergy, religious or lay person, within the Church may say will change their minds, I know that from experience. However, I shall continue to pray that the Holy Spirit enlightens their, and our, understanding and that they return to obeying the Magesterium of the Church. Whether they agree or not, they are currently protestants, at least for as long as they continue to ignore official Church teachings. I'm glad to report that after a while one becomes immune to these rantings and tends to politely but firmly end futile conversations. That said, I think I shall do just that.

May God bless each and every one of us

Sara

-- Sara (Sara@yahoo.com), March 23, 2003.

Hi Sara.

I respectfully disregard that take on the matter as not being substantive, relevant or to the point.

Furthermore, despite any opinions to the contrary, I am most certainly a Catholic, a member of the mystical Body of Christ, whether anyone likes it or not.

You're all stuck with me. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 23, 2003.

I should add that I would like to personally thank Chris B. and John Gecik for assisting me in coming to the correct understanding of this issue, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Solus.

When I first came into the forum a year or so ago, I had been mulling over a great many things for a little while, and this contemplative venture occurred during a time in which circumstances had made it manditory that I should be thinking more deeply and seriously about the Faith of my upbringing.

I have not been "convinced" into this doctrine of the Catholic Church by others... by reading their material and whatnot. I was not inducted into any doctrinal stance or ideology. I came to it by my own desire in pursuing the Catholic Faith, which was at first a painful task which I was reluctant to undertakd, a pursuit that was made mandatory and was an act of mercy by God in the face of my insignificance, my weakness and my sinfulness.

After having discussed the matter ad naseum on this forum, after having asked God and His saints for the truth of this matter, I am more convinced than ever of the Truth of the Catholic doctrine Extra Ecclesiam Nolla Salus, taken at face value and wholly devoid of any diluting and modernistic revision.

I would like to personally thank each and every member of the forum who has helped me gain insight into this matter.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 23, 2003.

could someone please explain the significance of the distinction in the context of this simple example:

(I) a protestant who lives his life according to his own particular brand of protestantism, fully in the knowledge that the Catholic Church exists, and fully aware of the teaching of the Catholic Church, but adamantly refusing to convert and disavowing all Catholic teachings that do not ormform to his own pastor's teaching. A "good person", btw, who adheres to his own church's interpretation of the 10 commandments.

(II) According to "original" Extra Ecclesiam Nolla Salus, he fails because he is outside the Church: he simply is not baptised into the Church.

(III) Under the "expanded/revised/whatever" V2/JPII teaching -- he might be OK if he is considered to be "baptised by desire".

(IV) Is this correct? I am confused by the practical effects of this.

(V) what if this guy, the Protestant, is brought up somewhere where he could never have got to find out about the Catholic Church (say in some very controlled family atmosphere). Does that change anything?

-- Ian (ib@vertigfo.com), March 23, 2003.

Why, as we learn in the Acts of the Apostles, was Saint Paul struck down by a blinding light and told to go over to Damascus and have water poured on his head? Why was Cornelius at Caesarea told to send for Saint Peter, and why was Saint Philip transported to Gaza to baptize the Ethiopian eunuch? Why were these baptizings necessary? Why all this "waste" of water and energy?

Why did Saint Martin of Tours raise a catechumen from the dead, and baptize him? Why did the North American martyr come over here, if unbaptized Indians could make perfect acts of love? The Indians poured scalding hot water on one of the North American martyrs, Saint John de Brebeuf, by way of ridiculing the Baptism of Water he was preaching. Why did the Church allow this torture to be provoked, if the waters of Baptism are non-essential to Indian salvation.

Baptism of water is absolutely essential if one is to become a Catholic. There is no salvation outside the Catholic church. Hence water baptism is the beginning of spiritual life. Baptism of desire canme only through the Baltimore catechism. Already playing up to American Protestantism. It is now at full speed ahead.

-- Ed Richards (lofta@yahoo.com), March 23, 2003.

If Baptism of desire is not possible, then the thief on the cross could not have been saved. Jesus took his expression of faith as sufficient for salvation, in a situation where water baptism was not possible - which is exactly the kind of situation where Baptism of desire applies.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 23, 2003.

Paul, The baptism of water was not available until after the resurrection.

-- Ed Richards (loztre@yahoo.com), March 23, 2003.

When I was in school, many years ago, I was taught that those who were not Baptised went to a place called Limbo, to await the final coming when they could ultimately be offered salvation. I think the whole idea of Limbo was later nixed. Was it? What's the story on Limbo today? TIA Jim

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), March 23, 2003.

Dear Jim,

The idea of Limbo was never formally taught as doctrine, and was never formally "nixed". It was a sort of popular tradition that developed as a logical response to the teachings that (1) baptism is required for salvation, and (2) a just God would not send unbaptized but innocent babies to hell. Today the idea has sort of faded away. The Church has never said we can't believe in it, just as they never said we must believe in it. Today the Church simply teaches that we "entrust such people into the mercy of God". Which is all we really can do anyway, whether Limbo exists or not.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 23, 2003.

Thank you Paul. I've been looking in on this forum for a few weeks now and have noticed that your contributions are always thoughtful and informative. Jim

-- James F. Furst (furst@flash.net), March 23, 2003.

so to go back to the simple example, am i right in concluding that:-

(A) According to "original" Extra Ecclesiam Nolla Salus, the "good" protestant fails because he is outside the Church: he simply is not baptised into the Church. [Ed seems to confirm this quite unequivocally]

(B) BUT, under the "expanded/revised/whatever" V2/JPII teaching -- he might be OK if he is considered to be "baptised by desire". Whatever that might require, but a "good" life is not enough. [Yet to be confirmed by anyone]

(C) AND, what if this guy, the Protestant, is brought up somewhere where he could never have got to find out about the Catholic Church (say in some very controlled family atmosphere). Does that change anything? [It seems to follow from the "original approach that he fails agian because he is outside the Church: he simply is not baptised into the Church]

-- Ian (ib@vertigfo.com), March 23, 2003.

I'm no theologian, and this is probably an overly simplistic answer, but it would seem to me that God has the final say in the matter. Jim

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), March 23, 2003.

(A) There is no "original" doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. There is only one. But the early INTERPRETATION of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus would exclude Protestants from the possibility of salvation, not because of baptismal considerations, since Protestants (except children) typically are baptized, but rather because of an excessively rigid interpretation of the term "Extra Ecclesiam". Again, the doctrine is infallible, but the early interpretations of it were not infallible, and were incomplete, inadequate, imperfect. Today we still believe Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as firmly as ever, but we have a far more theologically sound understanding of its specific application, more in keeping with what God has revealed about His own nature and his justice and mercy.

(B) No, Protestants are not saved by "baptism of desire", since they are typically baptized with water. It might well be proposed that Protestant children might be saved by baptism of desire, just like a Catholic infant who dies before the parents can have him/her baptized. But that is not doctrine, just reasonable conjecture. The more accurate and reasonable understanding of Protestant (and other non-Catholic) salvation is due to a broader, more theologically sound interpretation of just what "The Church" means, a fuller conception of "The Body of Christ", and a clearer vision of the role of The Church in the salvation of humanity.

(C) Yes, such a situation does indeed have a profound influence on the question of salvation - and would apply not only for your theoretical isolated Protestant, but also for pagans, atheists, and other "non-believers". The principle invoked here is that of "invincible ignorance", which the Church describes as follows:

"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". (CCC 847)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 23, 2003.

Yikes.

#1 "The more accurate and reasonable understanding of Protestant (and other non-Catholic) salvation is due to a broader, more theologically sound interpretation of just what "The Church" means, a fuller conception of "The Body of Christ", and a clearer vision of the role of The Church in the salvation of humanity."

Do you mean that "protestants" are also "Catholics"? that's what i think you are saying - you may chose different technical verbiage but the end-results are the same.

#2 "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".

Yes Catechism. pardon for the crudity, but this does not seem to point to any need to be a Catholic, at all.

PS this is not meant to be inflammatory; and i feel bound by everything that JPII says; but i am starting to wonder why -- should anyone ask -- I should recommend the Catholic Church as opposed to the local "Be Nice Society". You don't neeed to believe in God, you just have to be nice. even if you get that wrong - you get on yr knees and say you're sorry. (do you even need to mean it??)

Flower Power without the drugs or the extra-marital sex.

-- Ian (ib@vertigfo.com), March 23, 2003.

This is a dogmatic statement, not an interpretation, as some would like to believe. (Whenever the Church begins with 'believes, professes and preached', or something similar such as 'declares, says, etc.', then it is DOGMATIC, INFALLIBLE.)

The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,"......

There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. So, what can we do as Catholics? Follow what Our Lady of Fatima has told us, 'to pray your Rosary every day, pray very hard, and offer up your prayers and sufferings for the salvation of souls. Because without this, souls cannot be saved.' Yep, Anna was correct in saying that. Follow her lead, and if men are of 'good will', such as her uncle, then Christ will give them the grace of Faith. Even if it not be until his last hours, God will jump at the chance to 'bring the lost sheep home.'

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 23, 2003.

> "This is a dogmatic statement, not an interpretation"

Isabel, that does not make sense. Every statement is open to interpretation. You have provided yours, and the Church has a provided an interpretation that is different from yours.

You guys are as bad as the Biblical Protestants, who claim their understanding of the Bible is not open to interpretation. Of course as long as you always accept their interpretation. That's laughable!

Give it up guys, it all comes down to choosing you or the Pope, and I choose the Pope everytime.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 23, 2003.

Every statement is open to interpretation.

LOL! Are you serious? The funny thing is, I have never given any interpretation whatsoever. I am saying it is exactly what it says. No interpretation needed.

Does the following need interpretation? Or does it mean exactly what it says?

".. We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful"

If you say the Church can choose at a later date to interpret that differently than exactly how it sounds, then you are wrong! Because it is dogma! They define exactly what they mean. No ambiguity allowed in doctrinal statements. That is the reason and purpose behind defining doctrine, because it is supposed to put to rest all questions and doubts as to the Truth.

it all comes down to choosing you or the Pope

No, it all comes down to accepting Church doctrine of not. Leave me out of your choice.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 23, 2003.

> "LOL! Are you serious? The funny thing is, I have never given any interpretation whatsoever. I am saying it is exactly what it says. No interpretation needed."

Yeah, I'm such a funny guy.

So everyone on the planet is a Catholic, and are saved, right? I mean, if you are not going to provide an interpretation as to what a Catholic is, then I must assume all humans are Catholics based on your logic. I don't see how anyone is excluded from that statement you posted, as no exclusion is indicated, as to what a Catholic is.

Now we get down to interpretation right?

Was this post funny also?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 23, 2003.

Sean: Jesus NEVER said "Those who are not with me are against me" , He said "for he that is not against us is for us." (Luke 9:50)

Two VERY different statements.

Sorry, this was a little of topic, but he misquote was bugging me.

If Jesus DID say it the other way, could someone please show me where?

-- Prose (arpeggio69@hotmail.com), March 23, 2003.

With Gordon, nothing is what it says it is. It is just an intrpretation of what we or Boniface or the other popes interpret it. We needed the V2 popes to finally tell us what it really means. Thank goodness all the interpretations are ovr since John Paul straightened us all out.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 23, 2003.

Gordon,

I mean, if you are not going to provide an interpretation as to what a Catholic is, then I must assume all humans are Catholics based on your logic...........Now we get down to interpretation right?

No, I will not interpret. So I will just quote a couple of saints.

St. Peter Canisius: "Who is to be called a Christian? He who confesses the doctrine of Christ and His Church. Hence, he is truly a Christian thoroughly condemns and detests, the Jewish, Mohammedan, and the heretical cults and sects." [The sects mind you, not the people.]

St. John Vianney to a Protestant: "My friend, there are not two ways of serving Our Lord; there is only one good way, and it is to serve Him as He wishes to be served".

St. Peter Mavimenus: "Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian religion will be damned."

How about the four notes of heresy, set down by the Council of Florence?...

1) a pertinacious adherence to teachings expressly contradictory to that which has been defined by the Church;

2) an opinion opposed to a doctrine not explicitly defined by the Church nor clearly proposed dogmatically as an article of Faith;

3) a proposition that, although not directly contradictory to the Faith, nonetheless necessarily entails logical consequences against it; and

4) a speculation which reaches a certain degree of probability of being against the Faith.

Or how about this from Pope Leo XIII?

"Nothing is more dangerous than the heretics who, while conserving almost all the remainder of the Church's teaching intact, corrupt with a single word, like a drop of poison, the purity and the simplicity of the faith which we have received through tradition from God and through the Apostles."

Pope Benedict XIV: “We declare [NOTE: beginning of a dogmatic statement.] that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas: "If anyone was brought up in the wilderness or among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of nature to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe that God, by an inward inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as He sent Peter to Cornelius."

Without faith they can't be saved. Our Lord Jesus Christ is not optional. May the Holy Spirit enlighten all our hearts and minds to that which is true.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 23, 2003.

Dear Isabel,

Are there ANY statements made by the Church during the past thousand years that you consider valid? Or do ALL statements of the past thousand years constitute "modernism"??? Is your faith based solely on ancient documents and obsure statements by early councils? Or does the Church still teach validly today?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 23, 2003.

Well we have a group of you on this forum, who do not embrace all the teachings of the Catholic faith, as you reject V2, so based on what you just posted, you are all heretics, that will not be saved. You condemn yourselves.

Note, I'm not saying you are not saved, but responding to what you posted.

By the way, I accept all the teachings of the Catholic faith, and that includes Vatican 2. So I'm in complete conformity of all that you posted.

You have to be careful, with the selected texts you post Isabel, as some people might get the impression, that you have to have certain knowledge in order to be saved, and as far as I know, that is a heresy. You are not saved by knowledge, but by faith, as you indicated, but you cannot equate faith to being just knowledge.

Also, mental patients, may never have the ability to learn the faith, but that does not mean that they are not saved.

Isabel, I see you ended with: > "Without faith they can't be saved. Our Lord Jesus Christ is not optional. May the Holy Spirit enlighten all our hearts and minds to that which is true."

Is that your interpretation on the texts you posted? :)

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

The Holy Bible: "If ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins. [...] And other sheep [Gentiles] I have, which are not of this fold [not Jews:] them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold [the Church,] and one shepherd [the Pope, the vicar of Christ.] [...] But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life." (The Gospel of Saint John 8:24; 10:16, 26-8)

"And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added unto the Church daily such as should be saved." (Acts 2:46-7)

Gordon was this only Our Lord's interpretation?

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

"So little does the Roman Church stand alone, as you think, that in the whole world any nation that in its pride dissents from her is in no way a church, but a council of heretics, a conventicle of schismatics, and a synagogue of Satan."

-- Ed Richards (loztre@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

> "Gordon was this only Our Lord's interpretation?"

I'm not sure what you mean by that Ed. There can only be one correct interpretation, as given by the Church.

Anyway I will post what Ed posted above, as it's the answer here: > "The Holy Spirit comes to all men (other than Christians) in the form of grace making them part of the Body of Christ - ie. the Church, thereby availing to them, the gift of salvation albeit informally - ie. they are not “formally part of the Church”."

Informal Catholics can be saved. Note, that your perception of other men being outside the Church, may very well NOT be outside the Church, depending on what God says, as it is up to him.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Interpretations, interpretation. This whole conversation has come down to interpretations of get this... defined dogma. Alrighty.

Reminds me of that scene out of Princess Bride.

MIRACLE MAX: "Hey! Hello in there. Hey! What's so important? What you got here that's worth living for?"

WESTLEY: "... tr ... oooo .... luv..."

INIGO: "True love. You heard him. You could not ask for a more noble cause than that."

MIRACLE MAX: "Sonny, true love is the greatest thing in the world. Except for a nice MLT, a mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe. They're so perky, I love that. But that's not what he said. He distinctly said "to blave." And, as we all know, "to blave" means "to bluff." So you're probably playing cards, and he cheated."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 24, 2003.

Paul, you said

Are there ANY statements made by the Church during the past thousand years that you consider valid?

Absolutely!!! Whenever they adhere to the Deposit of Faith. But whether they were made 1500 years ago or just 50 years ago, does not matter. Infallible statements do not change and neither do their meanings. But so that you may be more satisfied, let me post a few made within the last hundred years.

Pope John XXIII, A.D. 1958-1963: "The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: "I am the door of the sheep." Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth." (Homily to the Bishops assisting at his coronation on November 4, 1958.)

Pope Pius XII, A.D. 1939-1958: "That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the head of the Body of the Church." If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ." But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body." Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "spiritual" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.

"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuses to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

"They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous errors who believe that they can accept Christ as the head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.

"We deplore and condemn the pernicious error of those who dream of an imaginary Church, a kind of society that finds its origin and growth in charity, to which, somewhat contemptuously, they oppose another, which they call juridical." (Mystici Corporis (on the Mystical Body of Christ;)

"Some think that they are not bound by the doctrine proposed in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago [Mystici Corporis] and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation." [NOTE: Even then, Modernists were trying to change the meaning of the doctrine. Hence, his warning in this encyclical.) (Humani Generis)

One more for you:

Pope Pius XI, A.D. 1922-1939: "Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern "Orthodox" schismatics] and the reformers [the Protestants], obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful?" Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of Faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."" (Mortalium Animos)

Or do ALL statements of the past thousand years constitute "modernism"???

Absolutely not. See above quotes. They have to remain faithful to prior teachings of the Faith. This is Modernism: when doctrine will be affected by just a single 'drop of poison', that will spread and infect the meaning of the whole dogma. That is what is happening here. St. Pius X warned of this, and knew of the Modernist influence already in the Vatican. Hence, his encyclical on Modernism. Why would he have warned us so forcefully, if he did not see this already happening?

Is your faith based solely on ancient documents and obsure statements by early councils?

Obscure statements? That is modernism to call them so, when they were so obviously simple.

Gordon, you said:

Well we have a group of you on this forum, who do not embrace all the teachings of the Catholic faith, as you reject V2

That's a ludicrous analogy, Gordon, and you know it. I accept any and all teachings that remain faithful to declared dogma and doctrine. You, on the other hand, accept teachings contradictory to dogma and doctrine.

By the way, I accept all the teachings of the Catholic faith, and that includes Vatican 2.

Um, actually, NO, you don't.

that you have to have certain knowledge in order to be saved, and as far as I know, that is a heresy.

What??!!! To say that one can be saved without knowledge is heresy. With knowledge comes faith, and with faith comes knowledge. How can one believe in Christ, accept His Church, accept all that she teaches, accept and receive the sacraments without, even if it be little, knowledge? Knowledge is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost! (The others, in case you did not know, are: Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude, Piety, and Fear of the Lord.)

Is that your interpretation on the texts you posted? :)

LOL! You are trying, are you not? But, again, it is not interpretation, just a simple re-statement of what I had posted. :)

You said this to Ed: Note, that your perception of other men being outside the Church, may very well NOT be outside the Church, depending on what God says, as it is up to him.

God speaks throught His Church, and the Church has made many infallible statements on this subject. To reject any of these is to renounce what God has told you. Quite simple, really.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

> "That's a ludicrous analogy, Gordon, and you know it. I accept any and all teachings that remain faithful to declared dogma and doctrine. You, on the other hand, accept teachings contradictory to dogma and doctrine."

You mean I reject your interpretation of those dogma's and doctrines.

> "They have to remain faithful to prior teachings of the Faith. This is Modernism: when doctrine will be affected by just a single 'drop of poison', that will spread and infect the meaning of the whole dogma. That is what is happening here. St. Pius X warned of this, and knew of the Modernist influence already in the Vatican. Hence, his encyclical on Modernism. Why would he have warned us so forcefully, if he did not see this already happening?"

You guys have a definition of modernism, which I don't agree with. I am a modern Catholic, and it does not bother me to say that. What it means to me, is that I accept all the teachings of the Catholic faith, right to the present day. I don't pick and choose what I want to believe in. That's wrong, and all those past statements you posted supports ME, and NOT you!!!

Thank you for telling me I am in the right and you are in the wrong.

One of the biggest traditions in the Catholic Church is obedience to the Pope, and a number of you here, clearly cut him down, and have rejected V2, which our current Pope supports.

You guys are providing you own overly rigid and legalistic definition of these past statements.

I also notice you are posting quotes from Saints, but you should know better as statements from Saints are not infallible statements. Lots of Saints have made false statements. Of course you pick and choose only those who support your view of things.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Gordon, You are correct, but obedience to the pope only follows when the pope is obedient to God.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Gordon,

You guys are providing you own overly rigid and legalistic definition of these past statements.

Once again, Gordon, I have done nothing of the sort. I have posted quotes from Popes, Doctors of the Church, and saints. All of which back my position. If you don't like it, you'll have to take it up with them. Again, not my interpretation at all, just *their definition*.

I also notice you are posting quotes from Saints, but you should know better as statements from Saints are not infallible statements. Lots of Saints have made false statements. Of course you pick and choose only those who support your view of things.

How about you find a quote from a saint who says what you believe to be the truth, that salvation is attainable outside the Church, and post it here?

I agree with the fact, that a saint can err, but these statements are in accordance with infallible doctrine, INFALLIBLE DOCTRINE! And the teaching of the doctrine always remained the same until the 1960's!!! Modernism is not rejected by following everything that comes out of the mouths of the heirarchy, but by following the Deposit of Faith, and everything that comes out of the mouths of the heirarchy that remains true to the Deposit of Faith. Even St. Pius X, a POPE, admitted the Modernism had so infected the heirarchy of the Church, that one must beware. Saying you follow the Popes in everything they say, does nothing to argue your point of view. It only shows a blind obedience.

I do not 'cut down' my Pope. I may point out certain actions or things he has said that I do not agree with, but I still always try to show the respect that is due to him and his office. I pray for him daily. I am subject to him, and all that he says in accordance, (once again), with the Deposit of Faith.

I don't pick and choose what I want to believe in.

Yes, Gordon, you do. In your acceptance of the modern-day 'interpretation' of this doctrine, you choose to disregard and not believe in infallible pronouncements.

Here is a bit of the Oath against Modernism.

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

Oath against Modernism in full. You will see that this saint and pope held evolving meanings in doctrine to be heresy and Modernism, not enlightenment.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

CATHOLIC OBEDIENCE MUST ALWAYS BE TO THE FAITH.

So it was in St. Peter’s day.

Where there is a proximate danger to the Faith, prelates must be rebuked,even publicly, by their subjects. Thus St. Paul, who was subject to St. Peter, rebuked him publicly. --St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians 2:14

So it was in St. Bellarmine’s day.

When the Supreme Pontiff pronounces a sentence of excommunication which is unjust or null, it must not be accepted, without, however, straying from the respect due to the Holy See. --St. Robert Bellarmine

So it must still be today.

All disciplinary authority, all obedience to a bishop presupposes the pure teaching of the Holy Church. Obedience to the bishop is grounded in complete faith in the teaching of the Holy Church. As soon as the ecclesiastical authority yields to pluralism in questions of faith, it has lost the right to claim obedience to its disciplinary ordinances. --Prof. Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, The Devastated Vineyard (Chicago, 1973), pp. 3-5

And immediately the cock crew again. And Peter remembered the word Jesus had said unto him: Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt thrice deny me. And he began to weep. --Mark 14:72

By the way; John Paul is the first pope NOT to take the oath against Modernism.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

The Oath against Modernism was rescinded in 1967. Sad. But every clergy member attending Vatican II had taken that Oath. Even sadder.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Dear Ed,

If the Spirit-led Magisterium doesn't think that the Pope is disobedient to God, by what authority or qualification does Joe Blow in the front pew decide that he is?

Dear Isabel,

It is curious that this Pope found evolution of doctrinal interpretation "heretical", since he lived long after the apostles, and was therefore accepting the interpretations of doctrine which were prevalent at his own time, which were the product of centuries of theological and scriptural study, and which the apostles would have been quite unaware of.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 24, 2003.

Paul,

It is curious that this Pope found evolution of doctrinal interpretation "heretical", since he lived long after the apostles, and was therefore accepting the interpretations of doctrine which were prevalent at his own time,

By all means, name some. Please, any doctrine that St. Pius X taught (such as in an encyclical) the meaning to be different than from what the Church had previously held, I would like to see it. By all means, I am open to seeing what those may be.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

> "How about you find a quote from a saint who says what you believe to be the truth, that salvation is attainable outside the Church, and post it here?"

I don't believe that, but no matter how many times I say that, you don't believe me. You have your definition of what God's Church is and God has his. I don't accept yours.

> "Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously."

Well that's not my definition of modernism, as I have been using it, yet I get condemn for it all the same! That's not fair, but then again, your guys refuse to even admit that this whole argument we are having here, stems from your overly rigid and overly legalistic interpretation of the teachings of the Church.

You can provide more quotes to me till the end of time, and I will reject your stance. I know my faith, and I practice it. I follow all the teachings of the Church.

You know every age has considered itself the modern age, but you seem to put more weight on it for this age, and that just confuses everything. I mean it just suits your position, that anyone who accepts Vatican 2, is in error, based on how you're defining how God's Church should be. I know, you are just providing quotes, and it has nothing to do with your opinion. Yeah right!

You guys are forgetting that the Church has the authority to change it's own rules, that's called Church law, but for some reason, you don't accept that. The Church cannot change divine law, as that comes from God.

Isabel, I recognize that you do not cut down the Pope, but Ed Richards has done it many times, in a number of threads. My reference was to him, so sorry for the confusion, when I say "you guys".

Like the Protestants who used to come to this forum, I just gave up on them. They were set in their ways.

I wish you guys well, but we are just going in circles here, and we will be going in circles for months and months, if we keep this up. I will correct you guys in other threads if you try to mislead others who come to this forum, but other than that, I am finished with this debate.

Stop condemning people cause in the end it will do you no good on judgement day. Always remember that Mother Teresa, a very good and holy woman, had no problems with Vatican 2. I stand in good company.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

You have your definition of what God's Church is and God has his. I don't accept yours.

Ah, dear Gordon! How many times do I have to tell you, it is not *my* definition? It is God's definition, not mine. Are you now telling me that you don't accept God's definition? Because remember, it is infallible.

Well that's not my definition of modernism,

I didn't quite understand what you were saying in that post. Are you saying that you reject that definition of Modernism? Because that was written by St. Pius X, not 'just' a saint, but a holy Pope, who wrote the encyclical, (Pascendi), on Modernism.

You are correct on one thing, though. We are going in circles. And, I of course, mean no disrespect to you by doing so. I only want the truth to come out. One thing, though.........while I (and Emerald) have provided quotes from saints, infallible dogmas, infallible excerpts from councils of the Church, and excerpts from encyclicals of holy popes to prove my point, all which should have been enough to convince one who *really* wanted the truth, it has not done so. Do you really want the truth, Gordon? Or do you want to be right? Do you want the truth really? Or do you want the current interpretations to be the truth? Do you want the truth? Or do you want was is easier to accept? Do you want the truth? Or will you accept only what it is you want to hear?

If you want the truth, then reread this thread and do some research on your own. Study the past councils and documents proclaiming this dogma. Study Pascendi. Study the writings of the Doctors of the Church on dogma. Study writings of the popes & Doctors of the Church on *this* dogma. Most importantly, say a prayer in earnest to the Holy Ghost to enlighten your heart and mind to the truth, and do not be subject to injured pride, which is the source of all sin. (One of the seven deadly sins, the others which are: anger, sloth, gluttony, covetousness, lust, and greed.)

Ignore the fact that I am a traditionalist. Is that what is holding you back to the truth? Because this is not about me. It is only about truth. It is not the council (V2) which I deny or reject, but most of what came out of the council, because it is filled with Modernist influence. And I don't deny the Church as the right to change Church law, but this is not Church law we are speaking of. This is dogma. Dogma was *given* to the Church by God, that cannot be changed.

Oh, and Gordon, I am not condemning anyone. I simply believe what the Church has taught and all that it teaches that is in conformance with the Deposit of Faith. If that is condemning people, so be it, then you are accusing many popes of saints of the same. You may stand beside Mother Theresa, but I stand beside, Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, Popes, and canonized saints.

God bless you Gordon!

Prayer to the Holy Ghost

COME HOLY GHOST (all) fill the hearts of thy faithful and kindle in them the fire of thy love

V Send forth thy spirit and they shall be created

R And thou Shalt renew the face of the earth

Let us pray . O God, who dids't instruct the heart of thy faithful by the light of the Holy Ghost, Grant us by the gift of the same spirit to be truly wise and rejoice in his consolation. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Isabel, I am making no more comments on this subject. If you want to believe that I'm not following the Catholic faith, that is fine by me.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

I didn't expect you to respond, Gordon. I was just posting a few more thoughts. Just remember that it is the responsibility of each individual to find the truth. So, please research this subject a little deeper.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

I address this to Isabel and Emerald. I cannot speak for either of you, but to some extent we see things tne same way. The Modernist Catholic in these times believe that whatever past popes have said (nomatter how solemnly) cannot bind future popes. They also believe that truth grows. The Holy Ghost is learning along with the rest of us,(so they think), therefore it is quite hopeless to continue. I would like to see a few years down the road, when a new pope either gets traditional again, or as St. Malachy predicts, the end of the Catholic Church.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Ed,

I agree. The Deposit of Faith was left fully to the apostles. The Deposit of Faith does not and cannot change. A lot of people have a false sense of how the Holy Spirit protects the Church. Sad that they will accept whatever comes from pope & Magisterium as guided by the Holy Spirit. I wish it were so, but obviously, it is not. If only they were to study a bit on their own, and be open to the truth, they would find it. I would ask all now to please pray for me, as I will for all of you.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Well Isabel,

Thank-you for restating my position so eloquently! My two main points right along have been -

(1) that "The Deposit of Faith does not and cannot change"! Bravo!

(2) that we should not "accept whatever comes from Pope & Magisterium as guided by the Holy Spirit"

So, thank-you for re-emphasizing these essential truths! This shows a clear appreciation of the fact that opinions and interpretations of the articles of the faith are completely distinct from the articles themselves - an essential point you seemed resistant to until now. Now you only need to acknowlege that item (2) applies to past Popes as well as the current Pope, and you are on your way to a peaceful and fulfilling life as a Catholic. Still though current interpretations are no more infallible than interpretations of past centuries, current understanding should prevail, for the reasons I have given previously.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 24, 2003.

I do agree, Paul. Wow, we agreed! The only thing we don't agree on is this: I accept all the dogmatic statements as is, you think they need elaboration. The thing is, many of those statements I have listed above are dogmatic statements, when you say they are 'understandings'. The preceding words will tell you if it is dogmatic or not.

Think of it this way. What is a dogmatic statement? It is an infallible *definition* of Catholic belief. Well, when you look up a word in the dictionary do you feel the need to elaborate beyond the specific definition? If so, then you can distort the truth of the definition.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

"What is truth?" Pilate asked.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 24, 2003.

Hey, Paul, being as you used the term *primitive* in the 'understandings' of dogma, I thought this may shed some light for you. I know it did for me. It is an error denounced in Pascendi: This elaboration consists entirely in the process of penetrating and refining the primitive formula, not indeed in itself and according to logical development, but as required by circumstances, or vitally as the Modernists more abstrusely put it. Hence it happens that around the primitive formula secondary formulas gradually continue to be formed, and these subsequently grouped into bodies of doctrine, or into doctrinal constructions as they prefer to call them, and further sanctioned by the public magisterium as responding to the common consciousness, are called dogma.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Dear Isabel,

+"I accept all the dogmatic statements as is, you think they need elaboration"

A: Let's see now, where have I heard that before? Ahh yes, from my Fundamentalist friends - "I accept the Bible at face value; I don't interpret it". The problem is, each denomination that "accepts the Bible at face value" comes up with a different "non-interpretation" than the next group. And so do those who base their faith in defined doctrinal statements on their own personal "non-interpretation" of the text, without the ongoing guidance and explanation of the Magisterium. Just where do you draw the line anyway? Is it okay to accept input from pre-Vatican II ecclesial authorities? Is it okay to accept the input of Aquinas and Augustine, without whose vast explanation and elaboration our understanding of doctrine would be close to non-existent? If you reject their explanations (that substantial portion of them that have been accepted by the Church), then you reject not only current doctrine, but also pre-Vatican II doctrine, the understanding of which was based largely upon the writings of those very men and other Doctors of the Church!

I accept the Constitution of the United States "as is". I have to, because no-one is going to change it for me. But we would be in deep trouble if every American was left to interpret it for himself. No less deep is the trouble a person is in who identifies himself as a Catholic, but claims the right to "non-interpret" the Church's doctrine for himself - or at least to reject the Church's official ongoing interpretation and explanation of it.

+"Well, when you look up a word in the dictionary do you feel the need to elaborate beyond the specific definition"

That is an invalid comparison. The definition of a word cannot be compared to the definition of a Constitution, a doctrine, or any other complex document affecting the lives - and in the case of doctrine, the eternal salvation - of millions. That is like saying I can put on a Band-aid, so I should be qualified to perform open heart surgery.

The opinions expressed by Pius X in Pascendi are a CONTRIBUTION to the ongoing development of doctrinal understanding! An encyclical, except in the rare circumstance where it actually provides an INITIAL DEFINITION of a previously UNDEFINED doctrine, is NOT infallible teaching. Why is this so difficult for you to appreciate? Do you think that Pius X didn't consider the writings of previous Popes in developing his own positions? Why would the ideas expressed in his encyclical be more valid or more binding than those of the earlier Popes, whose ideas he studied, and then partially departed from? Why would the writings of subsequent Popes be less valid than his? ALL Popes use essentially the same process in writing a pastoral communication ABOUT doctrinal issues. They study the history of the issue - the scriptures, the writings of the Fathers and Doctors, and of past Popes, give due consideration to all the pertinent thought of all the great minds who have preceded them, and then establish their own OPINION, based on the accumulated wisdom of the Church over the centuries. How do you think Pius arrived at the ideas expressed in his writings? Did the Holy Spirit appear as a tongue of fire, and whisper in his ear "Gregory and Leo were WRONG - Here's the REAL divine inspiration"? No. Pius's ideas built upon what came before him - just as the Church leaders of today give respectful consideration to what has gone before, including the writings of Pius X, SOME of which have lasting validity. Pius, in Pascendi, condemned outright the idea of "pondering one's faith". I wonder what Augustine and Aquinas would have said about that idea? But then, Augustine and Aquinas were not writing a denouncement of modernism, even though their opinions contributed strongly to Pius's writings on that subject.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 25, 2003.

A new light on the ongoing understanding of our Constitution, was the "discovery", of a woman's right to privacy. So much for ongoing enlightenment. The ultimate proof of anything, (bottom line), is the end result. End result of Vatican 2? The jury is still out, but it does not look so good. I know you will say that it is the times we live in, or disobeient bishops, or misunderstandings, etc etc. But it still is what it is. The numbers since V2 tell the story in a cold, factual manner. As for all those disobedient bishops. (67% covered up the pedophile thing to different degrees in the USA), WHO PUT THEM THERE? You cannot pass the buck on this.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

> "The numbers since V2 tell the story in a cold, factual manner."

Only in the West, where the minority of Catholics live, as most Catholics live in the 3rd world, and faith is thriving there.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

> "The numbers since V2 tell the story in a cold, factual manner."

Only in the West, where the minority of Catholics live, as most Catholics live in the 3rd world, and the faith is thriving there.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

For the time being Gordon. Like giving communion to Bill Clinton?

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

> "For the time being Gordon. Like giving communion to Bill Clinton?"

That would wrong Ed, for two reasons, he is not Catholic, and his support of abortion. Does not prove your point.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

Gordon, Show me where Vatican 2 has made one infallible declartion. Or for that matter all popes that followed. We are not bound by ordinary encyclicals.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

Isabel... hey. It seems things just fall out of the sky anymore and into one's hands at the right time.

This morning, I wasn't even looking, and came across a book by an author whose name I had heard somewhere before but knew nothing about or don't recall reading before:

THE GREAT HERESIES by Hilaire Belloc; 1938. It can be found as easily as by getting onto the EWTN website, of all places. I found it laying on a friend's table and he got it at the library.

Have you read it?

I opened it up and it's like a sponge soaked with truth. I've only skimmed the Introduction and then skipped to Chapter 7 a skimmed that so far. That "synthesis of all heresies" thing I complain about is right there up front in Chapter 7, totally in your face... the definition of heresy as containing "exception" in the Introduction.

It is unbeleivably good, and gets across what's we've been dealing with here in this thread in a way I could never hope to duplicate in my own words.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 26, 2003.

No, I have not read it, but I have heard of it and hear it is a great book by others that have it. I see ads for it quite often in one of the publications I receive, and have considered ordering it many times. No better time than the present I guess. Maybe now is the time to order, since you put the thought in my head. I have heard, too, that the 'Devil's Final Battle' is really good, too, but I haven't read that one yet either.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 26, 2003.

The best things in life are free.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 26, 2003.

> "Gordon, Show me where Vatican 2 has made one infallible declartion. Or for that matter all popes that followed. We are not bound by ordinary encyclicals."

I have stated to you Ed, that you should go to the old Mass, if that is what you want, but at the same time, you should respect those who want to go to the new Mass. Can we at least agree on that?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 26, 2003.

Agreed Gordon. I respect your right to attend the new mass, but for any newcomers, I want to at least inform them of the old mass with info, they don't get anywhere else. I wish someone had told me some years sooner. Someone finally did, and I want to pass it on.

-- Ed Richards (loztr@yahoo.com), March 26, 2003.

Hey, thanks, Emerald! I will staart peinting.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 26, 2003.

I will staart peinting

Did I just type that? That would be the effects of a sinus infection and hot toddies. :) Should be 'start printing.'

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 26, 2003.

Paul -thou doth protest much...

You are either with Jesus or you are not -no middle ground... When there is disagreement the Word trumps all...

-- Daniel (love@truth.org), March 29, 2003.

Dear Daniel,

Where personal interpretation of the Word trumps all, there is always disagreement. Where there is authoritative interpretation of the Word, there is truth. If you are with Jesus, you are where He said He wanted you to be - in His Church, where the fullness of truth resides.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 29, 2003.

You know, I was just thinking about this thread yesterday, and these thoughts came to mind. I thought I would share them with everyone. By reading Pascendi, we know that it was the goal of the Modernists to attack Catholic Truth. And we know that they would attack it by leaving alot of the truth intact, or at least the doctrines themselves intact, but they would try to hit a doctrine that would enable a distortion of that truth to spread to other doctrines of our faith. So, they would not even have to approach most doctrines of the Church, because just one would suffice. The quote from Pascendi: Moreover they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt.

And what would the root of Catholic doctrine be? Which doctrine would they try and attack to start this poison on its way? By introducing a 'new understanding' to just one dogma that would call into question the validity of every other dogma of the Catholic Church, which dogma would they choose? That's simple: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Solus. Why this doctrine, when there are so many others? Simple, as well: because by attacking this doctrine, and convincing people of the new fangled meaning that they have come up with, all which they have done, then the only logical conclusion would be that those who accept the new fangled meaning would then be rejecting so many other doctrines, even if it they do not realize they are doing so. By accepting the 'new understanding' then this doctrine would be useless:

We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, is by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.

And this one:

If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.

And this one:

Indeed we declare, we say, we pronounce, and we define that it is wholly necessary to salvation to every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

And this one:

If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

And this one:

If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

And this one:

If any one saith, that the baptized are, by baptism itself, made debtors but to faith alone, and not to the observance of the whole law of Christ; let him be anathema.

And this one:

If any one denieth, that, for the entire and perfect remission of sins, there are required three acts in the penitent, which are as it were the matter of the sacrament of Penance, to wit, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, which are called the three parts of penance; or saith that there are two parts only of penance, to wit, the terrors with which the conscience is smitten upon being convinced of sin, and the faith, generated by the gospel, or by the absolution, whereby one believes that his sins are forgiven him through Christ; let him be anathema.

And this one:

If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.

Well, I could go on and on, but I am sure you get the point. By saying that one outside the Catholic Church can be saved, then you are, if not explicitly, then implicitly denying each and every one of the doctrines listed above. Yes, it is God who judges who is Catholic....one could be Catholic by name but not in their heart. That is for God to judge. Or, for example, my grandfather was a Southern Baptist his whole life, and refused to convert in his lifetime to Catholicism. By what we can see, then Catholic doctrine holds that he is in hell, if he continued to deny to his dying breath. But it is not for us to judge, because none of us ever knows what a person is presented with in his last hours, even though he appear incoherent. We do not know if God revealed Himself in His entirety in those last hours, and my grandfather accepted all, then God sending down and angel to administer Baptism. While this scenario would not be very likely, since my grandfather denied the Catholic Church his whole life, and God would probably not have deemed him of 'good will', still it is a possible scenario, since all things are possible with God. (God could have allowed all the prayers said for my grandfather in his lifetime to intercede for him in the last.) This is why we cannot judge where one's soul resides. And we can do it in this way while still adhering to the doctrines of the Church, without bulldozing the narrow path of salvation.

All these doctrines are given to us from the Holy Spirit, and they are a glimpse of God, so to speak. Because His laws and doctrine emanate who He is. God's laws are the essence of who He is. To say that He could make an exception to His law and doctrine, would mean He would have to compromise who He is. And this is not possible. God cannot be compromised. He cannot change who He is. If He did so, then He would cease to be the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-just, all- loving, all-merciful, all-goodness, omnipotent God that we know He is.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 30, 2003.