time and time again, I see this; but no-one ever answers it. pls,....greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
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 have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, 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 by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the 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 he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.PS can David Ortiz and other fundie propandandists pls occupy themselves on other threads and leave this one alone. i think JFG is right: time for a turkey shoot.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 01, 2003
just to be absolutely clear on this, this is ex cathedra. it seems very clear. why are we now ecumenists? what do i need to read next?- was it not ex cathedra?
- is it ambiguous in its terms?
- can ex cathedra be over-ruled by ex cathedra (and where is the over-ruling ruling)?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 01, 2003.
The statement "salvation is only through the Catholic Church" is dogma. The rigid 5th century interpretation of this dogma which you quoted is not itself dogma, nor is it infallible. If the mere fact of stated dogma meant that nothing more could be discovered or understood concerning the matter of the dogma, theologians would be a useless commodity. The great theologians of the Church, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, were not in the business of creating new dogma. They were in the business of exploring existing dogma, allowing the Holy Spirit to draw the Church into ever deeper understanding of the "raw" dogma imparted to the early Church. The statement "salvation is only through the Catholic Church" was absolutely true in the 5th century. It is absolutely true today. But in the intervening 16 centuries the Church has learned and discerned through the power of the Holy Spirit, a far richer and far more godly understanding of that basic dogmatic truth than Catholics of centuries past possessed. If the Church has the divinely ordained authority to interpret the very Word of God, then surely it also has the authority to interpret its own doctrines in view of ongoing theological study and ongoing divine guidance. The dogma is the same today as it was in centuries past, and it will be the same until the end of time. But the Church's understanding of that dogma is, thankfully, far fuller and richer today than yesterday, and will be fuller still tomorrow, unless the Holy Spirit ceases guiding the Church into all truth, which doesn't seem likely.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 01, 2003.
Paul, It could not have been said better. Amen, my brother. God Bless,
-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), July 01, 2003.
Ian,
We must not conclude by this that a soul who dies in sin is ever saved; whether in OR out of the Catholic faith.We may presuppose according to the Church's teachings, that in some rarer circumstances an ''unbaptised'' soul CAN die in the grace we receive from Christ through the Church. This presupposes the soul was forgiven for all sin through extraordinary means. We call it Baptism of Desire, a salvation that is IN THE CHURCH, not effected outside the Church. Therefore, all the truth of the words ''Outside the Catholic Church there can be NO Salvation.'' There is no contradiction.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 01, 2003.
As I read this thread, I have to keep thinking about Luke 23:39-43. (Dismas sp?) One man may never live as a Catholic until the one day that he truly excepts God's teachings, even if it seems too late. Could a man he believes to be a Catholic yet not live fully by the Church's teaching one day find Salvation as did Dismas?rod. . . .
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 01, 2003.
Paul,compare and contrast this statement with the Catechism. you are looking at a complete U-turn.
if what you are saying is that you 100% dismiss this statement on the basis that it is not infallible, then i see where you come froml; but if you are saying that it is a primitive expression of modern Catholic teaching, than that defies all logic; whereas, if it can be shown that the statement was in fact a statement pertaining to faith/ morals made by a Pope, the maybe Kiwi is right (or, should i say, maybe you agree with him that that the Pope is fallible on such matters).
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 01, 2003.
Eugene & Rodsorry, messages crossed.
but fact remains, a Pope said this stuff. and there is plenty more how do you ignore it? either there is an infallibility issue; or it still applies today.
pls advise. interested and tormented by this.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 01, 2003.
"none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics"Eugene, this is unequivocal. Pagans. Jews. Heretics (incl protestants and others).
where is the bit that says that, if you live by yr conscience, that is good enough to get you there. this is a bland and bold statement. i would lve o understand why we believe that salvation is also available to Jews etc when a Pope declared that it was not. and the declaration was very very clear in its terms.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 01, 2003.
IOW:either the Pope is infallible OR Jews qua Jews (and protestants, and so on) will earn salvation and the Pope's not infallible.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 01, 2003.
Ian,In order to answer your question, you need to understand the context in which it was written. Please post:
1. the intended audiece of the quote
2. the conflict and relevent *controversies* at the time that would cause the statement to be made
3. The practical effects of the statement.
Once you do so, I can better answer your question on why the church states what they do now, compared to then. You can't just pull one quote out of the past and expect to understand it any more than the individual protestant who pulls out a Bible verse can be expected to *correctly* interpret the Bible. Do your research, then come back.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 01, 2003.
The Pope is infallible when officially proclaiming a doctrinal truth as binding on the universal Church. That's why the statement "salvation is only through the Catholic Church" is infallible. He is not infallible in every opinion he subsequently expresses relative to that infallible doctrinal truth, or any other subject.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 01, 2003.
There is no salvation apart from Jesus. He is the door. But there are those who know Him BUT do not know His name, i.e., the sweet sweet name of Jesus.God's grace does work through individuals as they respond to the Holy Spirit who beckons to every man, even to those who are innocently intellectually ignorant. These people are not WILLFULLY negligent, and KNOWINGLY IGNORANT. There is no MALICE in their ignorance. There is no PREMEDITATION or FOREKNOWLEDGE on their part to reject the Son of God. This is a very high standard indeed and would only pertain to those with the cleanest of hearts, who love God but may not have had the benefit of "hearing" the gospel proclaimed. It's sort of like "salvation by desire."
There are godly Muslims and godly Jews -- how can you explain their godliness apart from the Holy Spirit? Surely the Holy Spirit is the author of ALL godliness. Unfortunately, there are many Jews and/or Muslims that are a lot more godly than many Christians, especially in this country. (Don't worry, I'm pointing to myself too!)
At least that's my take so far. I am reading an encyclical on this subject "Interreligious dialogue with non-Christians." This document does not respond to New Age religions but is primarily concerned with those who worship the God of Abraham, though it could apply more broadly.
Everyone should read the encyclicals to really get a good understanding of what is being said, rather than basing your opinions on someone else's paraphrase.
Good subject,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2003.
Ian:Here is a schismatic SSPX website that fully affirms "invincible ignorance". http://www.sspxafrica.com/documents/2003_January/questions_and_answers.htm
Some quotes from the site:
If a person is invincibly ignorant, he could ... I repeat he could belong implicitly to the Church in voto. In voto means, literally, by desire or wish. An explicit belonging, or wish, would be shown by some exterior manifestation. An implicit belonging, or wish, is not shown exteriorly, but, could be simply explained in these words: "If I had the opportunity to know these things, these truths, then I most certainly would have embraced them!"If a person has never heard of the truths of the Catholic Church but yearns for the truth and keeps the ten commandments, which is the natural law, he may well be a Catholic in voto. Such a person will save his soul.My point is that this idea is not a post-conciliar innovation. If it were, the SSPX would hardly be enthusiastic about it. I of course do not endorse the site. Moderator is welcome to delete this post if he considers the link inappropriate.
-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 01, 2003.
Jmj
Hi, Gail. You wrote:
"There are godly Muslims and godly Jews -- how can you explain their godliness apart from the Holy Spirit?"[What I am about to say is not "official."]
My recollection of an orthodox Catholic priest's comments on this is as follows ...
Those "godly" Muslims and Jews to whom you referred are practicing what is called "natural virtue" -- living out their obedience to the "natural law" that is "written on the heart of every man" by God at conception. But they are not baptized, and thus do not possess the "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit, who bestows supernatural virtues and gifts on Christians. Even greater, heroic virtues are expected of us than of the Muslims and Jews.I keep these things in mind every single time I read/hear about the terribly violent behavior of all unbaptized peoples -- especially upon each other [as in the Holy Land]. We Christians, despite all our baptismal [and confirmational] gifts from God, have a very difficult time being virtuous and obeying the Commandments, partly because of the residual effects of original sin. Imagine how much harder it is for the non-baptized (non-Christians here at home and overseas) to do what is right -- laboring as they are under the full-blown influence of original sin. Besides our desire that all people become adopted children of God and learn of the gospel, the very presence among us of billions of people who are hampered by original sin provides a major impelling force for us to evangelize the world.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 01, 2003.
Stephen, I congratulate you for your post.
I wanted to write something similar for Ian, but it would not have come out nearly as well as what you copied -- which is indeed Catholic doctrine (despite the fact that it appears at an SSPX site).Ian, if Stephen's post doesn't help you enough, please say so, and I may be able to add something more tomorrow.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 01, 2003.
"My point is that this idea is not a post-conciliar innovation."Of course not; not by a long shot.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 01, 2003.
"If a person has never heard of the truths of the Catholic Church but yearns for the truth and KEEPS THE TEN COMMANDMENTS." Wouldn't that EXCLUDE everyone?John, that's a good point about the murderous rages of our Muslim and Jewish friends. Yet Catholics and Protestants are still going at in Ireland as well! They are still carrying out the European wars of the Reformation.
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2003.
Did not JPII say recently that Jews would also be saved because they were the first one's to receive the word of God?
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), July 02, 2003.
Hi Ian if you’re still not happy with the replies given, though I doubt it they were excellent, I ask that you go to the site below and have a read of Pope John Paul II thoughts. Go to chapter “Is Rome only right” regarding your question.John, or anyone with computer skills do you mind making a link to the Popes book “ Crossing the Threshold of Hope. For any non Catholic lurkers out there , it’s a fascinating insight into what Catholic believe. A very accessible read dealing with many of the "hard questions" posed by todays world in an open, honest clear and compassionate way.
For any Catholic interested in learning more about their faith its an ideal place to start and it should be compulsory reading. It will be in your local library, sorry folks to do the broken record on this book but its just mazing in its clarity, logic and beauty. Amazing.
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/POPE/HopeBook/toc.html
Misunderstanding occurs sometimes when the Pope talks of “non- believers” in the visible church who are “men of good will” being able to reach salvation in certain circumstances. Again I know this has been covered but just to reinforce what others have said. The following summary is useful Im not sure where I got this one from but Ive tried to reduce it down to something more digestible, it may help you.
1.Man by natural reason knows he must pursue his end , a good end, so he desires salvation
2. Grace manages to enter this natural desire so it becomes supernatural, this is the psychological beginning of the act of faith.
3. God reveals the means, the objective contents, even though this knowledge is not completely explicit.
How does God act?
1) with his natural providence; an unbeliever can admire the creation and believe; or God sends a missionary to the unbeliever.
2) with an immediate supernatural inspiration: we can read the autobiography of some convert, and admire their reflections.
In both cases, a truth, a content, a supernatural - implicit or explicit - revelation, is proposed to man.
A man of good will wants, "chooses," all these means God revealed to him
St. Thomas says, about such unbelievers -a man that doesn't believe by way of pure negation, , but adheres to everything God reveals to him, that "he does as much he can (quod in se est facit) - he is not, formally, an unbeliver - he has implicit faith.
In, this sense we may better understand the word by Fr. Garrigou Lagrange:
"Formally are more far from true religion people who deviated preserving many dogmas than people who tend to Catholicism embracing few verities." A primitive man in the jungle, who "does as much he can", has more faith than a dissident theologian!
Be not afraid!
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 02, 2003.
Hi Scott I dont know, but in 1994 he said this:http://www.catholic.net/RCC/POPE/HopeBook/chap16.html
Cheers
-- Kiwi (csiherwood@hotmail.com), July 02, 2003.
bold begone ?????
-- (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 02, 2003.
Here are Kiwi's links to the Pope's book:I also found this page which is a summary of a thread (on another Catholic forum) entitled: Dialogue on "Salvation Outside the Church" and Alleged Catholic Magisterial Contradictions
-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 02, 2003.
Thanks Stephen .
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 02, 2003.
JmjHi, Gail. You wrote:
"... that's a good point about the murderous rages of our Muslim and Jewish friends [who are not baptized]. Yet [baptized] Catholics and Protestants are still going at in Ireland as well! They are still carrying out the European wars of the Reformation."According to what I have heard, this is not a valid comparison. There was genuine religous hatred (and insistence on conversion) in the Europe of four centuries ago.
Likewise, there is genuine religious hatred in the Middle East -- where Muslims hate Judaism and Christianity as "infidel" creeds and demand that all convert to Islam.
But that is not the case in northern Ireland, where few protestants (and no Catholics, to my knowledge) demand that the other side change their religion. Instead, the battles in northern Ireland have been fought for two other reasons:
(1) political -- unification of all on the entire island as a single republic (with capital in Dublin), as opposed to continued separation of the north under the control of London.
(2) human rights -- Catholics being treated as second-class citizens in the north (resulting in much greater unemployment and lack of representation in political bodies).By the way, haven't things been considerably improved in Ireland in the last year or two? Except for some wild men [e.g., Paisley], Irish clergy on both sides really work for peace and reconciliation -- something we just don't see when unbaptized groups are at each other's throats.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 02, 2003.
dear alljust got back and really, really appreciate the answers you have all posted.
thank you all and may God bless.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 04, 2003.
Yes, John, I think they have improved dramatically in IRELAND! Praise God!Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 04, 2003.
To answer your question, Ian:"just to be absolutely clear on this, this is ex cathedra."
That's correct.
"it seems very clear."
That's because it is clear. It's clear because it is a dogmatic definition; the very purpose of a dogmatic definition is to "clear things up". It says what it says, and that's all there is to it.
"why are we now ecumenists?"
If by ecumenism what is meant is "bringing people into the Catholic Church", well then, that's nothing new. It's called evangelizing. But if it means that there can be any way of salvation outside the Church, then it's called another name:
Heresy.
"what do i need to read next?"
Ummm... I don't know. Anything, really, by the Saints is good. Pick up Louis De Monfort. He's awesome; good stuff on the Mother of God, good stuff on the Rosary. Staunch defender that outside the Church, no one can be saved. In fact, he takes it further. He pretty much claims that outside devotion to Mary the Mother of God, no one can be saved. You'll have to read it to understand what he means by that.
"- was it not ex cathedra?"
The modernist's claims that we have to understand Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as meaning something other, or "nicer", than what it actually said... yeah, that's not Ex Cathedra.
Those say such things are liberals and think that they are holier than the Pope. They trust their own private interpretation over the Solemn Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church.
"- is it ambiguous in its terms?"
Nope.
"- can ex cathedra be over-ruled by ex cathedra (and where is the over-ruling ruling)?"
Nope.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 04, 2003.
thank you too, Emerald for yr response.i hope to come back to this thread when i find the time to go through what everyone has said.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 08, 2003.
EMERALD-
''--what is meant is "bringing people into the Catholic Church", well then, that's nothing new. It's called evangelizing. But if it means that there can be any way of salvation outside the Church, then it's called another name:
Heresy.''You are focussed on two different things. That makes a guy wall-eyed! Evangelization is taking the Gospel to the nations. To pagan societies, or the totally ignorant. Ecumenism is opening dialogue between the Church of Jesus --the Catholic Church;
--and our brethren outside the fold. Sectarians, or ''Bible Christians.'' You can't evangelise them anymore. They've gone five centuries in errant disagreement with the Church their own ancestors worshipped in. Clearly, they would NEVER return without the greatest effort of our Mother Church. If ecumenical dialogue can reclaim just 3 out of 10 protestants over a year, Christ's will would soon be done. There would be One Fold, with One Shepherd.
So, never sell ecumenism short. Your sophism, ''if it means that there can be any way of salvation outside the Church, then it's called another name: Heresy,'' seems to mean (to you) the Popes over 40 years were ignorant of what makes heresy. The Church is better prepared than you to condemn heresies. We can't insinuate to her where good will ends and heresy begins. Ecumenism is no more nor less than offering our separated brethren our good will. Which is certainly in line with Jesus Christ's divine Will. Your sophistry would never 1.) evangelise a single soul, or-- 2.) Win back the most intelligent Bible Christian, much less the rude ones like Kevin and his sect. Sophism is not Catholicism.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 08, 2003.
Hi Eugene, Emerald and everyone:I guess the trick is to be uncompromising but loving at the same time! That really is the rub. But I like the methods of evangelization that the Pope introduces; I believe it is kinder and probably much more effective.
I like what one of the saints said (maybe St. Francis) Preach with zeal, and use words of you have to! (Or something like that). The Bible tells us to "always be ready to given an answer to those who ask." So, we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit AS ALWAYS!
I wonder how many Protestant conversions are on account of the changes in Vatican II? I bet its more than a few. The doors have been swung WIDE OPEN -- too open some would say, but the Lord will balance things out, just wait and see!
But Emerald, take heart, I really believe you will see the Church move back into more orthodoxy, spirit led, and for the right reasons, because people are HUNGRY for the pure Word of the Lord. Is that too optimistic? Nah -- it's happened before, and I believe it was called the Counter-reformation.
Love,
Gail
P.S. It's always darkest right before dawn!
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 08, 2003.
It's not sophistry at all, Gene, it's Catholic doctrine from Holy Mother Church herself. It's ancient, and in this age, it's new again apparently. It is so lost and hidden now that it is newly anew. Such novelties, huh?Gail, it's all in the contrast between the ways of men, and the ways of God; between the City of Man and the City of God, the ancient struggle. Right now, the Age of the Gentiles is reaching its zenith, and all efforts are bent upon bringing Heaven down to earth. Very much the stuff of the Old Law.
But the whole of our Catholicism has always been the narrow path and the extraction of the saved soul from a failing City of Man.
Read Gaudium Et Spes from the documents of Vatican II. Before you do, it would be helpful to drink about a gallon and a half of coffee, because you'll need it.
Compare and contrast this pastoral document against the many writings of the Doctors of the Church, the Saints. Think about original sin and the condition of man, and the Cross. Think about the immutable truth that never evolves or fades. Look back and to the present, and then back again. See the word "synthesis" used, and references to a brotherhood of man in the document.
Also, read and consider the Canons of the First Vatican Council, which includes the following:
"If anyone should say that with the progress of knowledge it is sometimes possible that dogmas proposed by the Church can be given a meaning different from the one that the Church has understood and still understands, let him be anathema".
I have no intention of anathematizing Gene, and I have no authority to do so anyways, as I'm just E-4 in the Mystical Body. That's not the point. Plus, in a round about way, I actually do understand what you are getting at, Gene. There is something to an idea of congenial conversation that entices people to consider our Faith.
But look what Cardinal Ratzinger, commenting on Gaudium Et Spes in "Principles of Catholic Theology":
"If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) [Gaudium et spes] is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-syllabus... Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a counter syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789..."
What happened in 1789? The Declaration of the Rights of Man. There's something definitely going on, a movement which when put under the spotlight of the principles of Faith, is slipsliding away from the Faith of the Ages and places our faith in men. Penance and supplication have taken a backseat to dialogue.
Consider also this:
"It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision."
-Catholic Encyclopedia, "Infallibility" (1910)
If that's the case for segments of the Bull of Pius IX which within it carries a dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception, then it certainly applies to the pastoral, not dogmatic, Second Vatican Council.
There are those who would have us believe that anyone who wishes to narrow the binding of the Faithful down to certain infallible statements are engaged in an effort to evade full compliance to Catholicism. There it is again, the hidden premise, which is this: that those who seek to hone in on the infallible definition in a text are thereby saying that they disregard or reject the rest of what is non-infallible.
This is not a conclusive premise but a simple assumption; it may or may not be the case. Out of this inconclusive assumption they seem bent on trying to make the case the everything that issues forth from the magisterium of the Church requires our immediate and complete compliance or assent. This has never been the way of our Holy Catholic Church.
That's what I'm hinting at when I say that people really do not understand the nature of true compliance with the magisterium of the Church... that's just a hint of it.
What does require our unwavering compliance and assent? The doctrine of Holy Mother Church, complete at the time of Pentacost. We are to hold this whole and undefiled. It is the narrow path.
So when it comes to real sophistry, Gene... I said once that the handmaiden to the faith these days seems like sophistry. Gone are the days of the recognition of solid and immutable realities and essences. Instead, we have some sort of Existentialist thingy going on. To me, it's all the same as sophistry anyways. But the solid and immutable realties? They're still there. They don't disappear, like I said before, for lack of available perceivers, and we will be held against them on judgement day.
Baptism is a real thing. Council of Trent, Canon 2:
"If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary in Baptism, and therefore interprets metaphorically the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless on be born again of water and the Holy Ghost": let him be anathema."
That's doctrine, pure and simple. Still worried about the ignorant natives? Hey, I understand. But for God's sake, let's let God handle it. When we invent ways around the issue that appeal to our own limited human understanding of things, we run end up compromising our doctrines. Blood and Desire are not in the Deposit of the Faith: Fact. Blood and Desire have never been defined as doctrines: Fact.
What St. Ambrose had to say about matters such as this:
"Leave argument aside in matters of faith, for it is from unbelievable things that our faith is made up."
Also, St. Alphonsus Ligouri:
"Were we to regulate the mysteries of faith according to our limited understanding, we would soon deny more than one of these mysteries".
Thirteen Councils, and only one is pastoral. A brotherhood of man.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 09, 2003.
Hey thanks, Emerald. That was ever so helpful.I hesitate to stick my nose into this argument as I am a complete novice in these matters. But if you go back and look at the Arian heresy which threatened to overtake the Church, there was one man, Athanasius, who stood against the tide. Satan tried and failed to introduce a destructive heresy into the Church. Then there were times when the Lord used ordinary peoples to help guide the Church back to perfection throughout her history.
I wonder what the laypeople thought when they saw the Bishops during the Arian heresy almost stray completely off course? What did the priests do? Did they keep silent as Satan tried to shipwreck the faith? Did they speak out against this heresy at the risk of being called a dissenter?
Jesus Christ is an offense to Jews (and to the world), "He is the stone which the builders rejected," and continues to be such. While I do believe God grant's extraordinary mercy to those in ignorance, what can be said of those who continually willfully reject Him." Shall they be given a pass? Shall it be said "Ahhh, Jews are already in a saving covenant and do not need to convert?" Therein lies the proverbial line of demarcation!
I, for one, would be loath to tell a Jew or a Muslim "Christ is of no necessity to you."
Gotta run,
Gail
P.S. BTW, There is a heresy beginning to run amouk in Protestantism these days under the title of "Universalism", i.e., that EVERYONE is going to heaven!
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 09, 2003.
Hey Gail really nice to see one of the few "orignial" ladies still braving it with us clowns...boys will be boys eh, we cant help ourselves sometimes. ANyway hope youre well. If youre interested here are a few thoughts s from different essays cut together by me from a catholic Apologist Shawn McEnterry on this issue if your intrested .Emerald you know Ill keep folowing you around like a bad smell on this issue.
Pope John XXIII
The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that he sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously. That doctrine embraces the whole of man, composed as he is of body and soul. And, since he is a pilgrim on this earth, it commands him to tend always toward heaven...
Pope Paul VI (to show his mindset on the matter) made the following pronouncement about what the Third Session would be completing with regards to doctrine:
“In this way the doctrine which the Ecumenical Council Vatican I had intended will be completed.... It is proper for this solemn Synod to settle certain laborious theological controversies about the shepherds of the Church, with the prerogatives which lawfully flow from the episcopate, and to pronounce a statement on them that is certain. We must declare what is the true notion of the hierarchical orders and to decide with authority and with a certainty which it will not be legitimate to call into doubt.” [16]
(SM) And distinctions such as the previous councils defining dogma and Vatican II not doing so are irrelevant because (i) most of the directives of earlier councils were disciplinary but were still considered requiring of assent and (ii) obedience to a teaching is not contingent upon it being handed on infallibly. As an Ecumenical Council, the teachings of Vatican II are to be heeded with a religious submission of mind and will even in areas where doctrinal decisions are not being rendered definitively. Failure to do this is to be in violation of Church teaching and Church law. To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject of the ordinary magisterium and infallibility:
During the interval from the council of the Apostles at Jerusalem to that of their successors at Nicaea this ordinary everyday exercise of episcopal authority was found to be sufficiently effective for the needs of the time, but when a crisis like the Arian heresy arose, its effectiveness was discovered to be inadequate, as was indeed inevitable by reason of the practical difficulty of verifying that fact of moral unanimity, once any considerable volume of dissent had to be faced. And while for subsequent ages down to our own day it continues to be theoretically true that the Church may, by the exercise of this ordinary teaching authority arrive at a final and infallible decision regarding doctrinal questions, it is true at the same time that in practice it may be impossible to prove conclusively that such unanimity as may exist has a strictly definitive value in any particular case, unless it has been embodied in a decree of an ecumenical council, or in the ex cathedra teaching of the pope, or, at least, in some definite formula such as the Athanasian Creed... [11]
“Consistent with the understanding of "pastoral" in theology, the Second Vatican Council certainly fulfills the criteria in its usage of sources spanning the dogmatic, moral, and other fields of study. As far as the dependence of pastoral theology on dogmatic theology, the Catholic Encyclopedia article Dogmatic Theology had this to say about the correlation:
Pastoral theology, which embraces liturgy, homiletics, and catechetics, proceeded from, and bears close relationship to, moral theology; its dependence on dogmatic theology needs, therefore, no further proof. [15]
And just as "no further proof" is needed to demonstrate the dependence of pastoral theology on dogmatic theology, there is no further proof needed refute the facile dichotomy of "pastoral" and "dogmatic" when it comes to Vatican II when compared with most of the previous ecumenical councils. It suffices to say that most previous councils were directly dogmatic and indirectly pastoral whereas with Vatican II the converse was the case. But it does not suffice to say that the predominantly pastoral character of the Second Vatican Council precluded any active dogmatic elements at all - and consequently any formal infallibility. For as we will now see, to some extent this element is active in all General Councils where the resolutions have received the approval - either manifestly or tacitly - of the Roman Pontiff.”
First Vatican Council.
“Some will persist and say: there remains, therefore, the duty of the Pontiff - indeed most grave in its kind - of adhering to the means apt for discerning the truth, and, although this matter is not strictly dogmatic, it is, nevertheless, intimately connected with dogma. For we define: the dogmatic judgements of the Roman Pontiff are infallible. Therefore let us also define the form to be used by the Pontiff in such a judgement. It seems to me that this was the mind of some of the most reverend fathers as they spoke from this podium. But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments? ”
This teaching was declared in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith which was promulgated in April of 1870: a text that made it clear that "[the] meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding"
In short, when the Roman Pontiff makes the decision to (quoting Gasser) "directly and conclusively pronounce his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals", he is involved in areas where he possesses a unique chari(SM) in settling controversies. He does not have to solemnly define a teaching to be speaking infallibly nor does he have to explicitly claim that he is speaking infallibly — as the teaching is not to be understood in a juridical sense.
The degree of assent owed to these teachings is the same with teachings solemnly defined or proposed definitively, the difference is the penalties involved. (The penalty of heresy only applies to the divinely revealed teachings.) However, it is important to note that culpable rejection of a definitively proclaimed teaching effectively severs the person from communion with the Catholic Church.
Likewise the absence of definitive form does not preclude that a given teaching is necessarily not settled infallibly. As if was noted earlier, often a teaching is infallibly taught before it is set forth in a recognizably definitive manner.
Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical Letter Humani Generis
It] must [not] be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me" (Luke x,16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their [official documents] purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
Vatican II
“This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.”
SM“Though widely held as theologically certain before Vatican II, the position had never been enunciated in a magisterial document previously. (Therefore it was still open to dispute.) The inclusion of that teaching in LG §25 settled that teaching definitively”
Also:
Catholic encyclopedias dictionary
This infallibility resides (a) in the pope personally and alone (see below); (b) In an oecumenical council (q.v.) subject to papal confirmation
And infallibity extends to secondary doctrines and facts whose connection with revealed truths is so intricate as to bring them within its scope.
>Furthermore, the modernists likewise attempt to widen the scope of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church in a similiar manner. The attempt is to make it appear as if doctrine comes from the magisterium itself as it's originating source.
Catholic encylopedias dictionary Magisterium (Lat. magister, a master). The Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion, "Going therefore, teach ye all nations... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. xxviii, 19-20). This teaching is infallible: "And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (ibid.) The solemn magisterium is that which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or popes. Its matter comprises dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils or of the popes teaching ex cathedra, or of particular councils, if their decrees are universally accepted or approved in solemn form by the pope; also creeds and professions of faith put forward or solemnly approved by pope or ecumenical council. The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers (q.v.) and theologians, in the decisions of Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense (q.v.) of the faithful, and various historical documents in which the faith is declared. All these are founts of a teaching, which as a whole is infallible. They have to be studied separately to determine how far and in what conditions each of them is an infallible source of truth.
(SM) The Church's ordinary magisterium is the common level of teaching exercised by the Magisterium. However, at times the Magisterium can teach infallibly at this level. This presents a problem for the self-styled 'traditionalists' when analyzing and appropriating the proper teaching authority to the different levels of the Magisterium. (They demonstrate in technicolour both their lacuna of knowledge on the subject as well as the inconsistent nature of their positions.) There is no consistent criteria in the theological paradigm of the 'traditionalist' for what makes one teaching infallible and another not so. This inadequacy is demonstrated when they take the flawed view of infallibility as a property uniquely manifested in the Extraordinary Magisterium. In light of the above quotes from the Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary, this is a profoundly erroneous and untenable position…
When speaking of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and its infallible teaching, Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Bertone made the following very important distinction:
It should be noted that the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church's faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. Furthermore, the intention of the ordinary and universal magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is not generally linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity; it is enough that this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context. [17]
The context in other words is what is important. The documents examined in this section from VC II were Dogmatic Constitutions. How is that for "context"??? They were teachings that were never taught previously in any Magisterial document which are now incorporated into not only Canon Law but also the Catechism of the Catholic Church. How is that for "context"???
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 09, 2003.
Hey kiwi; email this guy and see if he'll come in here.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 09, 2003.
great thread guys! .. [and Gail, .. we do have a 'kindred spirit' gal..]..Fr. Richard MacAlear said last week at the annual Marian conference in San Francisco that much of the significant evangelization will happen with the Moslems. He lives in France 3 months out of the year, and knows 12% of France is now Moslem as they are migrating up into France's southern part. They are having large families {..because they don't believe in birth control,they say "those Christians do"}, as the French are having an average of 1.5 kid a family.Anyhow, interestingly, the Koran is full of devotion to Mary, our Mother, and you can get jailed if you speak out against her "Immaculate Conception", that's right. Looks like she'll be a common bond and great help in times coming. Theresa
-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), July 09, 2003.
Hi Theresa:You are correct in saying that the Quran is respectful of Mary. It has a chapter dedicated to her, Sura 19 (Maryam).
However, its teachings are not only quite different from Christianity, they are vigorously anti-Christian. The main point of Sura 19 for example is that it is blasphemous to call Jesus the son of God.
They say: "The Most Gracious has begotten a son!"
Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!
At it the skies are about to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin,
That they attributed a son for the Most Gracious.
For it is not consonant with the majesty of the Most Gracious that He should beget a son.
Its story of Jesus's birth is also quite different from the gospel accounts. (I understand that it was influenced by some apocryphal and gnostic literature). Here is the Quran chapter on Mary.
-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 11, 2003.
OK.no straight answers to the original post --- "none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" --- so here's a kind of laxative.
Q. what is the difference between Emerald's beliefs and those of the Eastern Orthodox Church?
or (from Emerald's perspective)
Q. what is the difference between the Catholic Church as it now stands and the Eastern Orthodox Church?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 13, 2003.
.. and what i mean by this is -- who is in Communion (or nearly in Communion) with whom?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 13, 2003.
--- and, where i'm going is this -- in order to be a modern "orthodox" Catholic, you by definition must not believe in papal infallibility.i do not "wish to believe" that this is true, but....
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 13, 2003.
JmjHello, Ian.
Rather than consider the complications brought in by your final three posts, I'd rather go right back to your opening post and clear that up, once and for all.I believe that your quotation is from a decree of the 1442 Ecumenical Council of Florence (though it may also have been reiterated in a papal bull or encyclical). While some other Catholics may want to say that the decree is "not infallible" (hinting that it contains errors subsequently corrected), I will not say that. I have no problem accepting it as Catholic doctrine. One only needs to read it with care to arrive at the correct understanding of it -- an understanding fully in synchrony with a much later Ecumenical Council (Vatican II)!
I call your attention to two key phrases:
(1) "... unless before death they are joined with Her ..."
[This is from the first half of the decree, and it pertains to people who have never explicitly been "Catholic."]
The word "joined" is wrongly understood (by schismatics and dissenters) to mean something like: "united by formal, juridical membership -- via water-Baptism and enrollment in a Catholic parish."
Certainly, we must long and pray for all non-Catholics to have a formal conversion. However, in this decree, the word "joined" can also refer to a less formal "union," such as that which is wrought by an unconscious desire.(2) "... unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
[This is from the second half of the decree, and it pertains to people who are "card-carrying Catholics."]
The words refer to the requirement that convinced (formally) Catholic believers cannot be saved if they abandon the Church. This was expressed in Vatican II as follows:"Lumen gentium 14. This Sacred Council[, ... b]asing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, ... teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism, as through a door, men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 13, 2003.
Haunting words from the awesome Pope Leo XIII:"This is Our last lesson to you: recieve it, engrave it upon your minds, all of you: by God's commandment, salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church."
Pope Pius XI: "When it is a question of this life and salvation, we must say of the Church what St. Peter said of Jesus Christ Himself: "Neither is there salvation in any other"."
At Lateran Council #5:
"Since truth never contradicts truth, we declare every assertion to the contrary to the truth of illumined faith to be altogether false; and that it may not be permitted to dogmatize otherwise, we strictly forbit it, and we decree that all who adhere to errors of this kind are to be shunned and to be punished as detestable and abomninable infidels who disseminate most damnable heresies and who weaken the Cahtolic faith." (found in Denzinger 738)
In no way do I intend to point the last part of that statement at you, John. I have no right to do so, since I am not a "we" of the Church, and I don't mean to imply anything personal, but just as to the principle of the text.
The Oath of St. Pope Pius X:
"I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith has been handed down to us from the Apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same sense. Therefore, I absolutely reject the false and heretical notion that dogmas evolve and change their meaning to a sense different form what the Church first held." (D. 2145)"
This one's pretty well worn thread-bare, but here it is again:
Council of Trent, Canon 2: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary in Baptism, and therefore interprets metaphorically the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless on be born again of water and the Holy Ghost": let him be anathema. (D.858)
About the catechumens:
"Neither commemoration nor chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without Baptism." --Council of Braga
And of course, it goes on and on; it's simply all over the place throughout the ages of the Church. Hey, I looked! lol! I saw! It's really, really, really not ME and MY interpretation, it's the Church that says so! I'm trying to follow Catholic Doctrine here. There's honestly no devilry going on here, John, except my own stupid fallen existence.
No need to be concerned, though... God IS merciful as well as just. He knows what He is doing! He knows the ins and outs of His own creation, and He has it all under control and it all makes perfect sense within Him, even if we don't get it.
In the long run, what it really boils down to for the individual soul is narrow path to salvation. These texts and what they say, and how many, many times they are reaffirmed in infallible statements, and also through the ordinary magisterium, through the doctors of the Church, through Scripture, through the Saints, should be convincing enough.
But the narrow path of salvation is the most convincing evidence of all. Looking over the quotes from the Saints regarding the narrow path of salvation will scare the devil out of anyone, as it should. Salvation is to be sought out in fear and trembling.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 13, 2003.
Jmj
Hello, Ian.Don't be deceived or affected in any other way by the comments left after my last post. Some of them are irrelevant, while none of them undermines any thing that I told you. I will not address any of them specifically (unless you ask me about one of them), because I do not recognize the legitimacy of the presence at forum of the person who posted them.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 14, 2003.
''In the long run, what it really boils down to for the individual soul is narrow path to salvation. These texts and what they say, and how many, many times they are reaffirmed in infallible statements, and also through the ordinary magisterium, through the doctors of the Church, through Scripture, through the Saints, should be convincing enough.'',p>They are similar to the proof-texts a simple-minded Calvinist expounds on here. The Christian Soldier. He's convinced he understands each & every one.You're convinced the words you're quoting have borne out your pet agenda.
Salvation for every soul past present or to come, is through the Church. No one here has questioned that. You're riding it for your private hobby-horse. Why?
Is it because you think we're denying the doctrine? --We don't.
We know God wills for some few souls to be baptised even without ever being converted to the faith. The Church is a bigger tent than you thought, that's all. The narrow way is not that mysterious. There is ever a possibility of perfect contrition, repentence and God's forgiveness. Baptism of Desire. Entrance by the side door of the Church, after final perseverance. Similar to the way the Good Thief entered. WHY?
Because God willed it so.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 14, 2003.
This is why only the Pope can handle these matters. This is why I'm actually a Papal Loyalist. I know that sooner or later, it will come to pass that what needs to be restated will be restated and what needs to be restored will be restored in Christ. The Catholic Church is the house that I live in, and just like my household here in the Land of Fruits and Nuts, it sounds very similiar right now: MooOooooOOOMM!!! Emerald keeps saying heretical stuff.
Did not…
Did too!
Did not!
Did so…!
When?
Just now!
What?
Mom, he keeps saying Protestant stuff. Would you tell him to stop?!?
What? No I didn’t…
Yes YOU DID!
No I didn’t…
Did too!
Did NOT.
Did TOO!!! He keeps calling us liberals and stuff, and says we he’s orthodox and were aren’t. And he’s NOT orthodox because he’s not rightly taught, but he’s saying WE aren’t, and I’m SICK of it!!! And he won’t quit it!
Well, you aren’t…
Are too!
Are not.
Are too!
Are what, saying Protestant things?
Ye… NO!! You are, not me!
No, YOU are.
Are not.
Are too!
Are NOT!…
Are Catholic…
Not Cath…. MOOOOM!!!
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 15, 2003.
Emerald is so self-absorbed over these arguments he hardly pays attention to anyone else's posts. Here he is, eating up bandwidth. Nothing new, nor any answer other than the clown's charade. Heretic? I wouldn't say so. Just a boy playing the role of Don Quixote.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 15, 2003.
Am not...
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 15, 2003.
Dreaming an impossible dream? Si !
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 15, 2003.
As a new person at this forum, (and a new Catholic convert) I am now getting a great sense of confusion...as to which person’s post is reliable in their information and which person’s isn't. (Moderator Paul, excluded…of course.)How am I supposed to tell which one of you is telling the truth? As a new convert, I came here to learn things, but now it seems that I can't really learn anything because once someone says something, someone else refutes it, and then someone else refutes THAT person.
Of course, I study the Early Church Fathers, the Bible, the Catechism, watch EWTN, and have attended RCIA to try to learn more about my Catholic Faith. However, how am I supposed to know on this forum whom to believe or ignore?
Obviously, I CAN disbelieve anything that a non-Catholic, or anti- Catholic has to offer, and even refute it, but the thing that attracted me to the One True Church in the first place, was the UNITY. Where IS it?
My brain is getting a "swirlie". How can I tell WHO'S RIGHT on any given subject? AND, if it's all so subjective that I must double- check everything that anyone says, then why even go to the forum in the first place? If I have to research everything on here, shouldn't I just stick to researching Catholic documents and leave the mixed bag of opinions out of the mix?
I think I'll post a new thread with just this question. The answers ought to be interesting.
Paul, are you listening to this?
-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), July 16, 2003.
Victoriaas "a new Catholic convert", one obvious conclusion that you will draw from this thread -- unanimous from all posts -- is that, on the Road to Salvation, you are being driven in a Rolls-Royce. of course, and again, the unanimous view in the posts, is that even the Rollers can break down. the "traditionalist" thinks that, if we do, the Ford behind will never overtake as its always been going down a cul-de-sac. the "orthodox" think that the Ford might possibly go all the way to the finishing line -- but it will only get there with a tow from another Roller.
is the Road replete with other Rollers?? or are there also Fords, Mazdas, Chryslers, VW's, BMW's, Mercedes, and so on ... that can make it all the way??
whatever -- i am just very happy to be in a Roller. i hope that i do not run out of gas. but, if i do, that will be entirely my own fault.
if i am in a Mazda, well who knows....some say you are doomed ab initio,..... but why would you ever want to take that risk???
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 16, 2003.
I'm a traditional Catholic, Victoria.I goof off quite a bit, but I never lie, and I never intentionally try to mislead anybody.
When it comes to finding your way on the path of salvation, the Sacramental and Donctrinal means of which are to be found in the Catholic Church, the Church Christ instituted and which is guided by the Holy Ghost... when it comes to finding your way, there can be no better thing you can do than to ask the guidance of the Queen of the Angels, Mary Most Holy.
She's a tough mother, but will guide you safely to salvation.
In the mean time, if you wish to take a negative view of me as suggested by others, rest assured that I will not hold it against you.
Glad you like my freak humor though... It's a tough job, but you know what they say: somebody's gotta do it. =)
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 16, 2003.