I have heard that salvation is possible for those outside the Catholic Church according to some statement that came out of the Second Vatican Council. Now I am all for ecumenicalism, since I am not confirmed in the Catholic faith, but was there not a pronouncement made many years ago that stated that no salvation was available outside the Church? How can such conflicting statements exist by the unified Catholic Church. Another conflict I have read about concerns the Novus Ordo Missae. I read that Pope Pius V established the Ordo Missae and that it was never to be altered; if anyone was to alter it they should be anathema. Now, I don't mention these things to be devisive; I mention them because I have little understanding about such things and I feel as if God is calling me to the Catholic faith but I see so many things that make me doubt the unity and harmoney of the Church. The most important thing for me is to be in a Church that lives the Gospel. I mean in every way possible too (e.g. Faith that moves mountains, love that changes lives, hope that is inextinguishable) To me, these aspects are the true indicators of faithful Christians and I don't see how the True Church can tolerate complaceny and sin (e.g. Paul told the leaders of the Corinthian Church to cast out any leaven which could corrupt them from their congregation and yet the Catholic Church just shuffles around sexual offenders as if their crimes were not abhorrent to God and detrimental to the prosperity of the Church). All these facts are from the news and I realize there could be a bias there but if these things are true how can anyone look at things things and not weep for the state the Church is in. This is becoming a peculiar post; I will try to focus. Presently, is it believed that there is salvation outside the Church? Was the Old Mass unchangeable or is that a misunderstanding? Does anyone here go the a Catholic Church where they see God's hand moving in a powerful and loving way? Lastly, God bless you all in Christ our Lord and thank you in advance for addressing this post.

Pax Christi

J.D Brabant

-- J.D. Brabant (joshua123@qwest.net), February 12, 2004

Answers

Jmj

Hello, J.D.
I'd like to go through your comments and help you to know the truth, so that you don't need to rely on rumors that you seem to keep picking up from unreliable sources. I'm happy to have the opportunity to answer you first, because there are people (including ex-Catholics) hanging around this forum who are all too ready to give you wrong answers to your questions. If they come along behind me now and contradict me, be sure to ignore them.

You: "I have heard that salvation is possible for those outside the Catholic Church according to some statement that came out of the Second Vatican Council. Now I am all for ecumenicalism, since I am not confirmed in the Catholic faith, but was there not a pronouncement made many years ago that stated that no salvation was available outside the Church?"

Me: There is an infallible, unchangeable dogma that "outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." However, that phrase has to be understood properly. Its true meaning is not the meaning that some ascribe to it -- namely, that only "card-carrying Catholics will go to heaven."

What the Second Vatican Council did was to reiterate the correct interpretation of the "outside the Church" dogma -- which can be found in the writings of a 19th-century pope and elsewhere. The Council made clear that, if a non-Catholic, through no fault of his own, did not come to a realization of the absolute truth (that Jesus founded the Catholic Church as his necessary instrument of salvation), that non-Catholic could be saved. He would not be saved by his "non-Catholicism," but in spite of it. He would have to die in the state of sanctifying grace, having no unforgiven mortal sin on his soul. He would have to have a sort of unseen link to the true Church, in that, if he had known that God wanted him to be a Catholic, he would certainly have become one.

You: "How can such conflicting statements exist by the unified Catholic Church."

Me: I hope that you realize now that there is no conflict.

You: "Another conflict I have read about concerns the Novus Ordo Missae. I read that Pope Pius V established the Ordo Missae and that it was never to be altered; if anyone was to alter it they should be anathema."

Me: The older rite of the Mass (which was not the Church's original rite) was altered several times through the centuries -- most recently in 1962. Now that rite is still being celebrated licitly in some places. Pope St. Pius V had no ability to bind future popes to avoid changing the older rite or replacing it.

The rites of the Mass are not matters of unchangeable dogma, but of changeable discipline. In 1970, the older rite was not changed anyway, but a newer rite was added.

You: "Now, I don't mention these things to be devisive; I mention them because I have little understanding about such things and I feel as if God is calling me to the Catholic faith but I see so many things that make me doubt the unity and harmoney of the Church.

Me: Now you have more "understanding about such things" than you had before. The Church -- pope, bishops, and orthodox faithful -- most surely has "unity and harmony." What you have seen, though, is the UNorthodox faithful (dissenters) and faithless heretics, giving in to temptations from God-hating satan, who constantly try to undermine the peace within the Church. You need to look past all that distraction to the real Catholic Church. I strongly recommend that you read the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, here, and try to ignore the hellish voices of dissent and confusion that are trying to keep you from becoming a Catholic.

You: "The most important thing for me is to be in a Church that lives the Gospel. I mean in every way possible too (e.g. Faith that moves mountains, love that changes lives, hope that is inextinguishable)."

Me: Read the biography of our pope and the lives of the Catholic saints -- even one of your own lifetime, Blessed (Mother) Teresa of Calcutta -- and you will see these things. Read about the incredible amount of good that Catholics are doing around the world every day -- more than any government or other religion -- and you will see these things.

You: "To me, these aspects are the true indicators of faithful Christians and I don't see how the True Church can tolerate complaceny and sin (e.g. Paul told the leaders of the Corinthian Church to cast out any leaven which could corrupt them from their congregation and yet the Catholic Church just shuffles around sexual offenders as if their crimes were not abhorrent to God and detrimental to the prosperity of the Church)."

Me: Your comment is false. It is not "the Catholic Church" that "just shuffles around" anything. The Church strongly condemns sexual sin of all kinds. But here and there, we have seen that several Church leaders (not the Church herself) have failed in their duties. You cannot judge the Church based on several sinful leaders. Once again, these are distractions past which you need to look to see that the Catholic Church is the only body founded by Jesus himself. It is the only one that has the fullness of the truth -- with zero error mixed in to her teachings.

You: "Does anyone here go the a Catholic Church where they see God's hand moving in a powerful and loving way?"

Me: Yes, most definitely! Please phone the rectory of your closest Catholic Church and make an appointment to speak to a priest. I think that you will be welcomed and will be further attracted to join the Church. Ask the priest to take you into the church building and show you around. When he leaves, stay inside with Jesus (sacramentally present in the tabernacle) and pray for guidance.

You: "Lastly, God bless you all in Christ our Lord and thank you in advance for addressing this post."

Me: You're welcome. May he bless you too.

John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), February 12, 2004.

I meant to give you this link to the Catechism, rather than the one above, since this one has a table of contents. JFG

-- (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), February 12, 2004.

Hi J.D.

Here are the 3 Ex cathedra pronouncements:

"There is but one Universal Church of the Faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302)

"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." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)

You asked "Presently, is it believed that there is salvation outside the Church?"

Presently, the majority of people believe there is salvation outside the Church. Sentimental theology ;)

"Was the Old Mass unchangeable or is that a misunderstanding?" Not sure. But if you compare the Old to the New... seems like a big change.

"Does anyone here go the a Catholic Church where they see God's hand moving in a powerful and loving way?"

I do. I attend the Tridentine Latin Mass. I definitely see God's hand moving in a powerful and loving way. It is most beautiful! The chapel has a wonderful priest who is so caring, compassionate, supportive, hmmm... just unbelievable!

Pray to Our Lord and Lady for guidence.
God bless you.
FGC

-- FGC (FGCC4@yahoo.com), February 12, 2004.

Please note, JD, that the particular papal quotes provided by FGC above (thank you btw, FGC, for your defense of Catholic doctrine) come straight from the supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church, and are in fact infallible declarations.

That they are infallible statements is made clear by the wording used: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce..." and the like. How do we know this? Vatican I clearly lays out what constitutes the excercise of infallibility. Vatican I merely formally stated what the Church has always known and believed to be doctrine.

Also, please note that none of the theological speculations and theories about the subsistence of other religions in the Catholic Church as being sufficient for salvation have ever been formally pronounced as doctrine.

These things being taken note of, one is reminded of their obligation to prayer and work for the salvation of souls in a manner proper to their state in life. As Catholics, our business is the business of the salvation of our souls and the souls of others. It is the business of saints and angels, of Christ and His Mother. Our job is to hold the Catholic Faith whole and entire, and to defend it.

The claim that persons who uphold this doctrine of the Faith are mentally relegating people to Hell is not at all representative of the truth. As for myself, I certainly do not intend to, nor do I have that sentiment in my heart, nor is this what can be concluded is in anyone's heart. What the intention is is to remind people that Christ instituted a way of salvation, and that He was very clear and precise about it, and that it is the Catholic Church, so that we are not deceived.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 12, 2004.

"Now, I don't mention these things to be devisive; I mention them because I have little understanding about such things and I feel as if God is calling me to the Catholic faith but I see so many things that make me doubt the unity and harmoney of the Church."

Nor do I mention them to promote division, but unity in the truth. Welcome in advance to the Catholic Faith. Have no fear; in the Mystical Body of Christ there is only unity and harmony. Press forward despite obstacles; ask for the assistance of Christ and His Mother, and they will not fail you.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 12, 2004.

The following is from the Baltimore Catechism Edition 4. It gives the absolute best treatment on the subject.

121. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?

A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.

Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.

In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.

Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never -- even in the past -- had the slightest doubt of that fact -- what will become of him?

If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister -- not being a true priest -- has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition -- that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic -- with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts -- might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God´s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.

If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.

I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.

I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 12, 2004.

Dear Mr. Miskell; Your quotes and explanation clarify the essence of our forgiveness in Christ. Baptism IS total forgiveness, a burial in Jesus Christ's passion and death and our rebirth in His glorious resurrection. THIS is the Catholic Church in essence. I think the Popes' ex cathedral declarations were meant to say-- Outside the Catholic Church there's no other church (for salvation.) They spoke to the problem of rivals to her authority. Not altogether to individuals; except to demand they reject churches made by men. No one who is by God's infinite mercy forgiven (ultimately) --will be outside of the Catholic Church.

our argument here is with those who think being in the true Church demands total immersion in doctrine. This would be the ideal, of course. Considering that sin separates even true believers from God and His sanctifying grace, the matter isn't closed yet. The whole truth is, no one is forgiven their sins except through Jesus Christ, and the regular channel for His grace is our Holy Church. But Jesus is able to forgive anybody alive; as long as that soul repents of all his sins and is invincibly ignorant at his death.

Doesn't this bring up a question of the probability; that scarce chance? Is it practically impossible? YES -- However, Jesus plainly said to his disciples: ''With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'' (Matt 19:26).

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 12, 2004.

"Our argument here is with those who think being in the true Church demands total immersion in doctrine."

I'm not convinced that that's really the basis of any disagreement, Gene. I think it's something of a different nature.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 12, 2004.

Thanks, but we know what you think already and long since. You've stooped to saying I reject Catholic doctrine because we have theological differences. But you've never seen anything I wrote that wasn't orthodox.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 12, 2004.

Outside The Church There Is No Salvation

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

The doctrine that "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is one that is constantly misinterpreted by those who won't submit to the Magisterium of the Church. Faith does not depend upon our ability to reason to the truth but on our humility before the Truth presented to us by those to whom Christ entrusted that task. This is why the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition - including "outside the Church no salvation."

Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

Again, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said:

It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.

These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium. It is ironic that precisely those who know their obligation to remain united to the Magisterium, and thus on whom this doctrine is morally binding, keep themselves from union with the Roman See on this point.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), February 12, 2004.

I cut and pasted the previously posted answer from the EWTN Q&A site.

I should have been ommitted the title (for clarity).

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES THAT THERE IS SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.

Anyone who doesn't understand the loving grace of God should undertake contemplative prayer for a while.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), February 12, 2004.

Dear J.D.,

If you want to know about Catholicism, you can basically trust in John Gecik (JFG), John Placette, and Eugene. I'm good sometimes too, but I make mistakes (which I try to correct).

You should ignore Emerald and FGC. They are not always wrong, but they rebelliously attack the Church frequently because of their private ideas about the Mass and salvation. They do not trust the only teacher worthy of trust; thus, you must not trust them.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 12, 2004.

There's an unambiguous explanation of the doctrine, but the title here taken for it by the authors is ambiguous.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 12, 2004.

God can forgive anyone He wants to, at any time. I'm sure the "good thief" on the cross was not a Catholic or an early Christian.

St. Paul didn't convert because he was talking to Bob or Jane, and thought it was a good idea, God spoke to him directly. For some people, that will be what it takes. Others will be exposed to a good example of a Catholic in their life and will convert. Or some crisis (health, death, etc.) will cause a conversion.

However, since God made us all unique, it makes perfect sense that we all will have a different understanding of Christ. Some people are very learned, others have a very simple concept of Jesus (mostly from the Bible) without all of the extra doctrine/interpretation.

I don't think not believing in the Pope is going to be the main determining factor in whether one gets to heaven or not.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 12, 2004.

Thank you, anon(ymous@god.bless).

-- (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), February 12, 2004.

GT,
The Catholic Church is God's way of converting and sanctifying His people. Those who realise they're opposing the first and only Church are guilty of actual heresy. If they don't repent, they're definitely asking to be damned. In that respect only, it is going to matter who obeyed the Popes. So, the main determining factor is authority in this life. Not for your actual salvation, in all cases, but for living the Christian faith.

God will be the Judge.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 12, 2004.

anon says:

"You should ignore Emerald and FGC. They are not always wrong, but they rebelliously attack the Church frequently because of their private ideas about the Mass and salvation. They do not trust the only teacher worthy of trust; thus, you must not trust them."

That's it. I'm going to Hell for sure now. I'm damned. It's over... anon just said I was going to Hell.

John says:

"What you have seen, though, is the UNorthodox faithful (dissenters) and faithless heretics, giving in to temptations from God-hating satan, who constantly try to undermine the peace within the Church ... try to ignore the hellish voices of dissent and confusion that are trying to keep you from becoming a Catholic."

I'm damned. Right?

Let's take a step back and look at this question objectively. Did I say anyone in particular was damned?

No.

Did I say there was no salvation outside the Church?

Yes.

Did I condemn any particular person?

No.

Was the statement that there is no salvation outside the Church a defined doctrine, declared as binding from the chair of Peter?

Yes.

Has it changed since then?

No.

Does Fr. Feeney necessarily factor into this discussion?

No.

Now that someone has brought him up, was his position condemned by the Church?

No.

Did he ever recant anything to regain communion with the Church after he was nailed on obedience, not heresy, charges?

No.

Did anyone do anything about him continuing in his belief of defined doctrine after that point?

No.

Is there no salvation outside the Church?

Yes.

Should anyone listen to me?

No.

Should anyone listen to infallible declarations from the Chair of Peter?

Yes.

Are any new understandings of this doctrine been defined infallibly from the supreme magisterium of the Church?

No.

Is it still the case that people aren't getting the question right, messing up the answer to it, and assuming lots of dumb stuff?

Yes.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 12, 2004.

According to this article

"The Leonard Feeney Quarrel And Pius IX On Invincible Ignorance" by Farley Clinton

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2650

[The borders of invincible ignorance are unknown:]

"He (Pope Pius IX) said that in view of the indescribable real complexity and mysteriousness of the many factors that might limit a person's ability to understand the claims of the Church, there is no way as a rule to know who is or is not invincibly ignorant."

[The borders of "Outside the Church, no salvation" are unknown:]

Archbishop John Carroll said, "So far from our teaching the impossibility of salvation outside the communion of our Church, no divine (that is, no theologian), worthy to be called such, teaches it at all."

[We can't damn anyone:]

Archbishop John Carroll quotes especially the celebrated contemporary French theologian Bergier:

"It is false that we say to anyone that he is damned. To do so would be false to our general doctrine relating to sects outside the bosom of the Church. With respect to heretics we are persuaded that all of those who with sincerity remain in their errors, who through inculpable ignorance believe themselves in the way of salvation . . . are children of the Catholic Church. Such is the opinion of all divines from St. Augustine."

[I think to be on the safe side, it is best to make an assent to the Catholic Church, who has the fullness of grace and truth for 2000 years, who has the power to declare and define infallibly all matters of faith and morals, rather than frolicking with the murky doctrines of avant-garde protestantism.]

-- T. Stephen (3T_Stephen0@bread.org), February 12, 2004.

Hi JD

Regarding slavation Pope John Paull II has spoken on this. His thoughts may help you I throughly reccomend you read his words. If you require any help or clarrification with his thoughts. please ask someone will help you. Blessings

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/POPE/HopeBook/chap21.html

ps If you wish to read more, the folowing essays were helpful to me when discussing some of the some of the other issues raised in the thread

Dialogue: The "Traditionalist" Disdain for the Second Vatican Council Is it Consistent With Catholic Tradition? Is it Binding on All Catholics?

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ382.HTM

Dogma

http://www.trosch.org/the/ottintro.htm.

MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS AND PUBLIC DISSENT

http://www.sainthenry.org/library/cdfmdpd.htm

Cheers

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 12, 2004.

Dear All,

Thank you very much for your responses. They are so varied and different I am not sure if I have an answer to any of them; I will consider them all and read the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH(thanks for the link) to get a better idea of the doctrine. I went to Mass today at school and asked the priest about getting confirmed and he was very excited to tell me that they are having the classes this month; I believe I will go ahead with it if I feel God's hand leading me all the way (I must say I usually feel better after Mass). Only one thing was bothering me: the Lesbian and Gay Fellowship Parents Meeting. I think this is a program at the local church here in Tempe. I only ask about this because it sounds as if it could encourage the Gay lifestyle; Does anyone know what this is all about(e.g. to lead them to the truth in Christ)? I could never be part of a Church that condones that sort of lifestlye or even says that it is anything but walking defiantly against God. Are there branches of the Church that except this behaviour as tolerable or is this another misunderstanding on my part. Thanks again, PAX CHRISTI JD

-- J.D. Brabant (joshua123@qwest.net), February 13, 2004.

There is no part of the Catholic Church which has ANY different doctrinal or moral teachings than any other part. The teachings of the Church are universal. The meeting you refer to could be a Church sponsored support group for parents trying to cope with their sons' and daughters' ungodly lifestyles; or, it could be a non Church sponsored meeting which the parish allows to be held on their property (scandalous, but it has been known to happen); or it could be the result of a misguided pastor who has fallen victim to worldy propaganda. If the latter is true, I would find another parish, as well as writing a letter to the bishop, informing him of the situation.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 13, 2004.

Let me make this easy for everyone.

I hold these two beliefs:

1. That there is no salvation outside the Church.

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Now I stubbornly cling to these two beliefs. It drives people up the wall.

Objective: to show me how I'm wrong for holding these two beliefs.

Naturally, I ask, how am I wrong?

Hit me with everyone and everything you've got; the position is unassailable. I simply hold these two beliefs to be divinely revealed truths, which they are, and dogmatically defined by the supreme magisterium, and always held in the Church.

Now how in the world are you going to pull this off? Quote Karl Keating? I know Karl. Villainize the person who wrote Desire and Deception? I know who it is; he's a great guy. Who cares?

Me, I'm a nobody. Do any of you understand these two doctrines better than I? If so, I applaud you.

But if so then why try to talk me out of them? I will not deny them. You may deny them or compromise them if you wish, but I will not.

Nor can my holding of these two doctrines be touched. It's unassailable. It's a matter of holding the Catholic Faith.

Where strategy is concerned though, let me offer a encouragement and perhaps a little advice to help everyone in their attempt to get me to deny the above doctrines of the Catholic Faith:

1. The thing where you claim that the person is "damning people" works fairly well. Even though it isn't true, that doesn't matter. It looks convincing.

2. It always helps to rely heavily on other laymen's work on the issue. Provide lots of links; in fact, swamp it. Big names work well, big people with big audiences, and big prestige. Smart people.

3. Portray the person who tenaciously holds the above doctrines to be an Elitist.

4. If that doesn't work, try idiot. Don't use these two terms in too close conjunction with each other though, since they don't seem to mesh so good.

5. One of the much more effective approaches is to make out like the person who tenaciously holds the above two doctrines has absolutely no concept of the infinite mercy of God. They have no love; they feel no love.

6. Far out and the best approach, though, has to be this: to say "but I DO believe those doctrines, but..." and then proceed to explain how you mostly believe them, however not in exactly the same way, but it's still the same, just better developed, even though it's really not the same way, but, it's pretty much the same. It's improved.

That last one? That's basic modernism. That seems the most effective yet, I believe. I would say that's the best way to go.

Maybe someday I'll sit down and reflect on all the unique, and not so unique, ways in which one might be able to get me to deny the above Catholic doctrines of the Faith; it would be pretty amusing. The above is just for starters.

Whatever you do, though, don't lose your cool. Never, ever lose your cool and start damning the person who tenaciously holds the above two doctrines, because if you do that, then you've just defeated yourself. Don't place them outside the Church That... never works well. It's kind of like refuting yourself.

There is no salvation outside the Church.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 13, 2004.

And to everyone's relief, that's the end of it; check the archives if you care to, if not, that's everyone's choice I guess.

As a matter of course, if someone brings the issue up, I'll just point out the fact that we Catholics have doctrines, one of them being that there is no salvation outside the Church, and another one being that Baptism is necessary for salvation. People say that don't deny these; I contend that they quite often do.

In other words, you won't catch me denying these doctrines, and if someone asks if they are doctrines, I will tell them as a matter of course.

I cannot make people believe something; I can only tell them the truth.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 13, 2004.

Emerald,

True,

1. That there is no salvation outside the Church.

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation.

However,

1. You cannot definitively delineate the extent of those truths.

2. You cannot usurp God's Grace for granting salvation to those "outside the Church."

-- T. Stephen (3T_Stephen0@bread.org), February 13, 2004.

But Stephen, that's the whole point. People keep saying I'm doing #2 but holding these doctrines. No pun intended. I'm not! I do not claim to be doing #2, period. People assume this.

As for #1, the deliniation was most recently expressed by, of all Popes, Pius XII when he equated the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church. Plus, Baptism is a pretty darn sacramental deliniator for participation in that same Mystical Body; hard to get around.

So, I claim not guilty on both counts. I simply decide to hold the doctrines; it's a decision. It doesn't even require understanding from me.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 13, 2004.

Emerald,

Pius XII is not the only Pope who delineated those truths--as a Catholic you are bound also to Pius IX's teaching in two separate documents, and those of John Paul II.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 13, 2004.

Hi Anon,

"They do not trust the only teacher worthy of trust; thus, you must not trust them."

Who's this "only teacher worthy of trust" who I don't trust?

This is beginning to sound like a mind reading parlor game.

With bated breath,
FGC

-- FGC (FGCC4@yahoo.com), February 13, 2004.

"Pius XII is not the only Pope who delineated those truths--as a Catholic you are bound also to Pius IX's teaching in two separate documents, and those of John Paul II."

And what specifically would that be?

Put the exact quotes out there, and tell me exactly what each quote means.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 13, 2004.

Emerald,

So as long as

you are not doing #2 and therefore not damning to hell anyone who is "outside the Church,"

you agree with the Popes' and Saints' definitions of "Outside the Church, no salvation,"

you reject the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney,

I would think that you are in union with the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding this matter.

-- T. Stephen (3T_Stephen0@bread.org), February 13, 2004.

Furthermore, those "outside the Church" are to be thought of as Pre-Catholics. [just like St. Paul (murderer), St. Mary Magdalene (prostitute), St. Augustine (great sinner), etc.]

-- T. Stephen (3T_Stephen0@bread.org), February 13, 2004.

Hi Stephen,

You wrote:
"Furthermore, those "outside the Church" are to be thought of as Pre-Catholics. [just like St. Paul (murderer), St. Mary Magdalene (prostitute), St. Augustine (great sinner), etc.] "

Just a comment:

Maybe it would be better to say "potential Catholics" not "pre-Catholics" because God desires all to be saved but we have freewill. Not everyone in the world will convert to the Faith. I may be a "potential millionaire", but it would be presumptious of me to call myself a "pre-millionaire".

God bless,
FGC

-- FGC (FGCC4@yahoo.com), February 13, 2004.

Emerald,

I already did in the Gibson thread. Here they are again:

Pius IX:

"Singulari quadam" (1854) --that individuals can be ignorant of the truth through no fault of their own and "are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord." "Ma nel tempo stesso si deve pure tenere per certo che coloro che ignorano la vera religione, quando la loro ignoranza sia invincibile, non sono di ciò colpevoli dinanzi agli occhi del Signore."

"Quanto conficiamur moerore" (1846) --"We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace. For God. . . will not permit, in accordance with his infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishment. However, also well- known is the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church"

Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (1946) added, importantly, "...they cannot be sure of their salvation..." That's common sense, of course.

John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (1990) writes,

"For such people, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally a 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. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation."

Here's the thing. All of these must be acknowledged as a part of the authentic interpretation of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus."

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 13, 2004.

Emerald, you wrote,

Now that someone has brought [Fr. Feeney] up, was his position condemned by the Church?

No.

Actually, yes. From an article on CatholicCulture.com, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: Fr. Feeney Makes a Comeback (a well-written, but poorly editted document):

"On August 8, 1949, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued the Protocol Suprema haec sacra, specifically condemning the doctrines of "the Cambridge group" as presented in From the Housetops, vol. 3. Feeney charged the Protocol was invalid, since it had not yet been published in the official Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The irony of this criticism is that according to John Cardinal Wright in a March 1976 article in L'Osservatore Romano, His Holiness Pope Pius XII personally wished to supervise and, indeed, make the official English translation which would be sent to the Archbishop of Boston for promulgation in the battle zone...

...Eventually, after repeatedly refusing several summons [All people charged with an excommunicable offense are summoned to Rome first. --Anon] to Rome, he was excommunicated for persistent disobedience to legitimate Church authority by the authority of the Holy See on February 13, 1953, the decree of which was subsequently published in the Acta. ...there is little doubt that as far as Pope Pius XII was concerned, Leonard Feeney was, in fact, extra ecclesiam."

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 13, 2004.

FGC, you're right, potential is a better word.

anon, thank you for clarifying that Fr. Feeney was indeed excommunicated -- the Catholic Church gives us a stern warning not to embrace his beliefs.

-- T. Stephen (3T_Stephen0@bread.org), February 13, 2004.

"Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (1946) added, importantly, "...they cannot be sure of their salvation..." That's common sense, of course."

But most protestants are way too presumptuous that they already possess eternal life in heaven -- many of them are in for a big shock.

-- T. Stephen (3T_Stephen0@bread.org), February 13, 2004.

Fr. Feeney's position was:

1. That there is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Feeney was reconciled to the Church; as part of his reconciliation he recited this. Take a good look at the first and the last lines.

He was ask to recant nothing, and he recanted nothing, as there was nothing to recant. They had nothing on him and they knew it, and the obedience strategy and trap was the only way to try to snare him. The rest is just a matter of destroying his name and reputation. See, to me, that's the same thing as what happened to Christ.

St. Athanasius was excommunicated several times because he defended the Faith in his day against rampant heresy.

No matter how you slice it anon, it's an attempt to coerce someone to deny doctrine. After all, how can anyone possibly call something a doctrine if it cannot be known, such as another unknown and mysterious way of salvation other than what we already know as Catholics?

Think about that for a minute. How can an unknown, mysterious way of salvation other than the Church be a doctrine? Doctrines are divinely revealed truths. A doctrine could never be a divinely revealed unknown possibility. How can one lend assent to such a thing?

No, Feeney was not convicted of heresy. People just wanted him to shut up. They didn't like what he was saying, even though what he was saying was Catholic doctrine.

But this wasn't about Feeney. Why do people keep talking about Feeney? It was about what the Catholic Church teaches:

1. That there is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 13, 2004.

"And to everyone's relief, that's the end of it..."

I'm weak on resolutions. At any rate, I was wondering which doctrine I should deny first, the Baptism one, the extra ecclesiam, or did you have any other doctrines in mind that I should deny?

This is takes a lot of time, and I was thinking maybe if we laid them all out on the table at once, I could be asked to deny them all in a one-time shot. More efficient this way, maybe. We could call the whole group of denied doctrines the synthesis of all heresy.

Then I could go get a job as an apologist somewhere. Close to here.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 13, 2004.

Let's not return to writing anthologies about our faultless interpretation of sacred doctrine, please.

1. There is no salvation outside the Church.
2. Baptism is necessary for salvation.

What's not to like? We all believe these doctrines. Yet, we know that Christ has saved some who were exempted.

Martyrs for Christ, firstly. Unbaptised, but willing to die for him. The Baptism of Blood.

And; those whom God has saved by Baptism of Desire. There can be no doubt they exist. We see this as a mystery, it cannot be known by man, but man knows God is All-Just and All-Merciful; and that He knows the hearts of all men.

If we acknowledge all this, there is no problem in the above-mentioned doctrines; we definitely believe them and Our Lord will judge us faithful on the last day.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 13, 2004.

"What's not to like? We all believe these doctrines. Yet, we know that Christ has saved some who were exempted."

Option 6 it is, then. Straight for the premium package, spare no expense.

6. Far out and the best approach, though, has to be this: to say "but I DO believe those doctrines, but..." and then proceed to explain how you mostly believe them, however not in exactly the same way, but it's still the same, just better developed, even though it's really not the same way, but, it's pretty much the same. It's improved.

You also said this:

"...but man knows God is All-Just and All-Merciful; and that He knows the hearts of all men. If we acknowledge all this, there is no problem in the above-mentioned doctrines; we definitely believe them and Our Lord will judge us faithful on the last day."

I believe that.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 13, 2004.

Christ clearly says in the Gospel: ''Whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.'' That's Baptism of Blood, martyrdom. We also know God desires that ALL men be saved. Put two & two together, and remember that what is literal isn't always self-explanatory. Don't believe me. Read up on baptism.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 13, 2004.

Emerald,

It is becoming clear that you have a certain attachment to Feeney's rigorist position which you did not reject. You have already voluntarily taken on a role as Feeney's apologist. Surely, he did not incur excommunication for a trivial distortion of a Church teaching -- his position was condemned by the Church. I am reading that your position is the same as his; if not, how is your position different from his? Are you saying that Pope Pius XII was wrong in excommunicating Feeney? Are you saying that Pope Pius XII "made an attempt to coerce (Feeney) to deny Catholic doctrine"? So, all Pope Pius XII wanted was for Feeney "to shut up"? So, Pope Pius XII did not like the "Catholic doctrine" Feeney was spreading?

How come you are surprised by the mysterious doctrines of the Church? Isn't it that everything about Christianity is a mystery?

I don't think that any Catholic here is asking you to deny any Catholic doctrine; maybe, what people are asking you is to embrace the fullness of the Church's teaching on "Outside the Church, no salvation" and Baptism.

-- T. Stephen (3T_Stephen0@bread.org), February 13, 2004.

Emerald...based on your beliefs it appears all the aborted babies in the world are going to Hell? Because they are neither babtised nor emmbers of the church? Wow, what an unmerciful and unjust view of God you have. I feel sorry for you and will keep U in my prayers.

We can all sit here and speculate this matter for days, but in the end I don't believe any of us can understand the love, mercy, and justice of God. It's easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle....

-- Mike A (none@none.com), February 13, 2004.

Mike: "Wow, what an unmerciful and unjust view of God you have. I feel sorry for you and will keep U in my prayers."

So as to avoid this unmerciful and unjust view of God, it would seem necessary at this point for me to deny the following doctrines:

1. That there is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation.

That conclusion would necessarily follow; if your premiss is correct, then in order to hold to a view that God is truly merciful and just, then one must reject certain Catholic doctrines.

But for a Catholic to deny doctrine is absurd; therefore, your premiss must be incorrect: that holding these doctrines constitutes an unmerciful and unjust view of God.

Stephen: off the top of your head, can you recall the first usage of the term fullness in relation to Catholic doctrine? Your entire argument hinges upon it.

Also, I wonder the same about the use of the word rigorist, and whether a term denoting variation of degree can be properly applied to immutable doctrinal truth. Your questions also rest heavily upon this word.

In the mean time, I find no valid reason to deny these to be unchanging doctrines:

1. That there is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 14, 2004.

Who suggested any reason to deny them or question them? No one here, Lad. I could see beating a dead horse. But you are carrying one on your back.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 14, 2004.

Emerald,

Why are you so bent on victimizing yourself and accusing your fellow Catholics of wanting you to deny the very Catholic doctrines all Catholics should uphold? That is not the proper way to become a Christian martyr.

You conveniently avoided answering my questions about your adherence to Feeney's excommunicated beliefs, similar to yours, on the premise that terms needed to be defined first:

Fullness -- the Catholic Church claims that she possesses the fullness of grace and truth ... get your definition of fullness from that.

Rigorist -- this thread defined it ... EWTN's Colin B. Donovan, STL said, "... the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium."

Maybe, now you can dare to go back and honestly answer the questions I raised ... most importantly; How is your position different from Feeney's? (unless empty rhetoric satisfies you)

-- T. Stephen (3T_Stephen0@bread.org), February 14, 2004.

Emerald wrote: In the mean time, I find no valid reason to deny these to be unchanging doctrines:

1. That there is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation.

To which eugene c. chavez replied: Who suggested any reason to deny them or question them?

Answer: John Paul II does.

"The fact that the followers of other religions can receive God's grace and be saved by Christ apart from the ordinary means which he has established does not thereby cancel the call to faith and baptism which God wills for all people."

Yet in the very next sentence he writes: "Indeed Christ himself 'while expressly insisting on the need for faith and baptism, at the same time confirmed the need for the Church, into which people enter through Baptism as through a door.'" (Redemptoris missio)

This is what is known as a non sequitur: A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it. And JPII's writings are full of them, mixing orthodoxy and heterodoxy in an attempt to please everybody, but only causing confusion instead.

Either baptism and membership in the Church are necessary for salvation or "the fact" is that they are not. Which is it?

-- The Sane Trad (sanetrad@yahoo.com), February 14, 2004.

"Why are you so bent on victimizing yourself and accusing your fellow Catholics of wanting you to deny the very Catholic doctrines all Catholics should uphold? That is not the proper way to become a Christian martyr."

It might be a stretch, but I'm thinking that perhaps this would fall loosely under strategy #3:

3. Portray the person who tenaciously holds the above doctrines to be an Elitist.

"You conveniently avoided answering my questions about your adherence to Feeney's excommunicated beliefs, similar to yours, on the premise that terms needed to be defined first:"

Ok, I want to freeze it here for just a second and have you take a look at the bolded portion. You've loaded your statement with a bad premiss, which is that Feeney's beliefs were excommunicated.

I see that Feeney held that:

1. There is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation.

I didn't see anybody excommunicate these beliefs, as if that were possible. Go grab the 1949 letter from the Holy Office and I'll show you what is actually there and what isn't.

To continue:

"Fullness -- the Catholic Church claims that she possesses the fullness of grace and truth ... get your definition of fullness from that."

I believe that the Catholic Church has always taught that she possessed the Truth in the form of divine revelation. You'll most likely find that the concept of "the fullness of Truth" is a fairly recent concept if you really look into it.

Take the Holy Trinity, for instance. Our doctrines concerning this are Truth. Do we understand it? No, not really; we take it on faith. Fullness as it is commonly used implies that we understand it, and that there are some others out there that only sort of understand it. Fullness would imply that some people know a few things about it but perhaps deviate here and there in some part, but that they share something in common with us as Catholics who undestand it better.

But as you well know, even a small dint of error is what heresy consists of. The common use of the term fullness applies to the principles of Divine Revelation something somewhat foreign to it, at least from the perspective of the human intellect: it implies a gradation of knowledge or level of understanding. There are levels of understanding of doctrine, sure, BUT the understanding begins and ends with acceptance of doctrine by faith, not by comprehension by the human intellect. This acceptance or rejection of doctrine is a yes/no, on/off, black/white act of the human Will. The acceptance of an article of the Catholic Faith is an action of the human Will, not the human intellect. It pertains to intellect, but is not an act of the intellect. Fullness of knowledge would be properly predicated of the intellect, but not the Will.

The term Fullness of the faith in common usage actually finds its real utility where the questioning of an article of faith by the human intellect is concerned.

The term rigorist has kinship with the term fullness; both spoke of variation of degree, something which cannot be predicated of the acceptance or rejection of Catholic doctrine. One either holds the Faith, or does not.

About Donovan:

"Rigorist -- this thread defined it ... EWTN's Colin B. Donovan, STL said, "... the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium."

But see, he just says that. I see no evidence of this. You know, lots of people say lots of stuff; are we supposed to believe everybody? Why not just be true to the Faith?

Let's take Colin B. Donovan's proposal and draw the necessary inferences from it. If he is saying this isn't true:

"that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved"

...then it necessarily follows that one need not be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved. But this conclusion is contrary to Catholic doctrine expressed in so many different ages and place in the history of the Church, and again here in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors:

15. [it is an error to believe that] 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. [it is an error to believe that] 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. [it is an error to believe that] 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.

So when you say this:

"Maybe, now you can dare to go back and honestly answer the questions I raised ... most importantly; How is your position different from Feeney's? (unless empty rhetoric satisfies you)"

I answer that my position is this:

1. It is doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. It is doctrine that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Holding the Faith by faith is not empty rhetoric.

Empty rhetoric is what makes people deny the doctrines of the Catholic Faith. This is an unassailable position, Stephen; it's completely foolproof.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 14, 2004.

T. Stephen,

You're wasting your time, you know. You'll have as much luck convincing a Baptist to become a loyal Catholic as convincing Emerald to be one. Both of them have decided that THEY are the ones who determine what's right and wrong, and not the teaching authority of the church. As long as that's the case, neither the Baptist, nor Emerald (or the other schismatics or heretics that show up) will ever have any reason to change.

Look at it this way: if you think YOUR interpretation of the church law, faith, morals, etc. is the correct one, why would you listen to what someone else tells you? This is the place these guys are in, IMO.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 14, 2004.

You confuse me, Frank. All I'm saying is that I hold these to be doctrine:

1. That there is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation.

When somebody wants me to deny these things and I refuse to, I'm> being disloyal to the Catholic Faith? Me?

Maybe it would be clearer, Frank, if I used the weapon of the opponent against him. I could try it on you with this question:

"Frank, do you believe that the Scriptures are the word of God, and inerrant, and true?"

I'm pretty sure you would say yes.

But then I could say you "you really, really believe that God punished the whole world with a great flood, and that only eight people were rescued?"

You would have to admit that you do, but you can sense where this is going...

"Geez Frank! What an awful, unmerciful and unloving God you believe in! You need help, man... that's sick!"

Alright. Now what do you do?

1. Admit I would be right and deny your faith in the Scriptures, or

2. Believe the Scripture anyways.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 14, 2004.

Emerald,

I am greatly astonished by the severity of your convoluted thinking ... I'm not sure if it borders on madness ... definitely not genius ... and most definitely not elitist as you assert.

Feeney was excommunicated either for his belief or for his behavior which exemplified his belief -- belief was the issue. Was Martin Luther excommunicated for being a papist? Popes don't go around excommunicating Catholics for holding Catholic beliefs and for behaving like Catholics.

Your defense of Feeney is a bad sign of a dubious form of "Catholicism" -- a rigorist, uncharitable, ungracious, deficient kind.

=======

FRANK,

I think you're right; Emerald could very well be stuck in his defiance.

-- T. Stephen (3T_Stephen0@bread.org), February 14, 2004.

"Emerald, I am greatly astonished by the severity of your convoluted thinking ... I'm not sure if it borders on madness ... definitely not genius ... and most definitely not elitist as you assert."

But like I said upthread, this is predictable. You've now taken strategy option #4:

"4. If that doesn't work [the charge of elitism], try idiot. Don't use these two terms in too close conjunction with each other though, since they don't seem to mesh so good."

Also used is another strategy option:

"Your defense of Feeney is a bad sign of a dubious form of "Catholicism" -- a rigorist, uncharitable, ungracious, deficient kind."

Strategy #5:

5. One of the much more effective approaches is to make out like the person who tenaciously holds the above two doctrines has absolutely no concept of the infinite mercy of God. They have no love; they feel no love.

See?

But all I did was say that

1. There is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. Baptism is necessary for salvation.

"Emerald could very well be stuck in his defiance."

Faith and belief are defiance?

Stephen, you're trying to talk me out of my Catholic doctrines. On purpose? No, probably not, and I would never assume that of you. But that's the net effect.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 14, 2004.

It turns out John Gecik had the best idea, though for the wrong reason. Emerald ought to be banned. He should take his scruples and his verbosity elsewhere. (martyr.com- - - ?)

There is no getting around his fencing fetish with mere words. Praying for him is the only answer.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 14, 2004.

Banned for holding two doctrines. Wow.

Go read Luke Chapter 1 and take notice of Mary's manner of acceptance of the will of God. We have to imitate her, and when we do, she leads us straight to her Son and says "immitate Him".

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 14, 2004.

Dear Emm: All of us hold the two and many more; not only you. You've long since proven you cannot learn anything. ''Banned'' for contumaciously bragging about your superior faith, would be the case. Your cohorts, jake, the sane trad, et al are equally tiresome, and have NEVER brought anyone here to greater understanding of Catholic doctrine. Banning you all would not cost the forum one iota of doctrine or of faith. It would just clear the decks.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 14, 2004.

You've long since proven you cannot learn anything. ''Banned'' for contumaciously bragging about your superior faith, would be the case.

Predictable:

3. Portray the person who tenaciously holds the above doctrines to be an Elitist.

4. If that doesn't work, try idiot. Don't use these two terms in too close conjunction with each other though, since they don't seem to mesh so good.

I don't know what else to say. What do you want me to believe, Gene?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 14, 2004.

Emerald,

Do you know what an equivocation is? It is claiming something is true based upon the confounding of two possible meanings of the same word.

Example: group: "We're having a ball!" newcomer: "Really? I don't see one."

The newcomer thinks he is talking about the same 'ball' as the group, but he is mistaken. Ball = an enjoyable time; ball = a spherical object associated with play. These are not the same.

I know you know this, but I am only setting the stage for explanaing our failure to communicate:

Here is your argument. "(a) Fr. Feeney taught that there is no salvation outside the Church, and that baptism is necessary for salvation. (b) The Church also teaches these doctrines. (c) Therefore, the Church has not condemned Feeney's teachings, which are her own."

This is an equivocation, just like the example of the ball.

Feeney: "there is no salvation outside the Church, and that baptism is necessary for salvation" = All non-Catholics simply go to Hell. If Gibson's wife doesn't explicitly convert before she dies, she's going to Hell. The Pre-Columbian Indians are all in Hell. Everybody who dies without any sentience of being Roman Catholic at the time of their last breath goes to Hell.

The Church: "there is no salvation outside the Church, and that baptism is necessary for salvation" = as it is, and containing all teaching regarding it, including Scripture as taught by the Magisterium, and all documents, not privately interpreted, but mediated in and through the living and authentic tradition of the Magisterium.

That includes, but is not limited to: all ecumenical councils (including Vatican II AND it's Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium), and all Magisterial teaching, including Pius IX's teaching on invincible ignorance, Pius XII's teaching of the Mystical Body of Christ in the Church, and Yes, John Paul II's Encyclicals too.

Suprema haec sacra, 1952, "This dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it."

So, you see, I hope for your sake and ours who are tired of your mantra, as if it was genuinely meaningful, that you can not, in Christian conscience, perpetuate Feeney's doctrines as Roman Catholic. You cannot go on repeating, "there is no salvation outside the Church, and that baptism is necessary for salvation," if by those you hold fast to Feeney's private interpretation.

And if you do, you mislead Catholics. And if you mislead Catholics, you get banned, because those are the rules.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 14, 2004.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 14, 2004.

Excellent, anon; and incontrovertible by Emerald. Not that he won't reply with another show of sophism.

''I don't know what else to say. What do you want me to believe, Gene?''

Just once, I'd like for you to say, ''I understand''. But if you can't learn, you won't say it.

If you were truly upholding a truth against error; I would support you and urge you never to quit. But we haven't denied any Catholic doctrines. Neither has Pope John Paul II; and when you impugn him, and Jake impugns a Catholic Mass (with or without a regal altar,) we leave you to your madness.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 14, 2004.

{anon & eugene} Hear! Hear!

==============================

Emerald,

"Stephen, you're trying to talk me out of MY Catholic doctrines."

Your "Catholic" doctrines -- they are your very own misinterpretations and concoctions indeed (and Feeney's); not the Catholic Church's.

-- T. Stephen (3T_Stephen0@bread.org), February 14, 2004.

By the way, Emerald, the Book of Strategies you are using as a reference is obsolete. You need to buy the latest one.

-- T. Stephen (3T_Stephen0@bread.org), February 14, 2004.

"...if by those you hold fast to Feeney's private interpretation."

I don't know what Feeney's private interpretation was of anything. john placette brought up Feeney, not me. He copied and pasted something by Colin Donovan.

It's not Feeney that I hinge my Catholic doctrine on; I hinge it on what the Church has always taught.

Suprema haec sacra, 1952, "This dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it."

It's a letter from the Holy Office you refer to, and it's dated 1949. Feeney is mentioned nowhere in the document; it's written to the Archbishop of Boston.

"This dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it."

I can only assume that it means this infallible declaration provide by FGC further upthread:

"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." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)

What else could it mean? The Holy Office document even restates the authentic position of the Catholic Church in the first couple paragraphs. It then enters into a discussion of theological speculations about about invincible ignorance, none of which has been defined by the Church. The Holy Office document concludes with this:

"Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire”. Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpa­ble ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restric­tion that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation."

That last paragraph of the Holy Office document is awesome; it's the truth. Let not, then, the members of the Church be ranged against the infallible declaration of Pope Eugene IV. That last paragraph isn't applicable to me at all. I just hold that there's no salvation outside the Church and that Baptism is necessary for salvation. That's basic catechism stuff.

You know what? After having read this letter, is even more clear than I had remembered from reading it in the past. The letter doesn't even mention Feeney or me or any particular position for that matter. It's generic.

I am ranged against nobody, really; and least of all, against the Catholic Church.

You know what's really wierd? This guy who thinks he's the real pope agrees with your position. That's argument by association though; I wouldn't be mean to you like that. I like real arguments.

What I've found to be true is that people are ranged against those two doctrines that I refuse to let go of. Let me show you:

Can you read this ok?

I picked that up recently at the ecumenical get-together up at Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral in LA and snapped a photo of it on the drive back.

In case you can't read it, it says this:

"Come live in an exhilarating reality of church unity! An African Methodist Episcopal bishop preaching at the Roman Catholic Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels surrounded by Greek and Armenian Orthodox, Quakers, Methodists, UCC's, Presbyterians, Episcopals and others. Join us to celebrate our common heritage in Jesus Christ and our commitment to the visible unity of the church."

These are the people that are ranged against the Church. Why? Because they aren't talking about trying to achieve unity.

They're saying they already have it. That's against Catholic doctrine.

They talked and talked and talked while the real Mysterium Fidei was shoved off into some small side chapel that looked like a tomb, out of sight and ignored while some guy was bantering about social justice or something, and you could hear his words of wisdom bouncing off the walls of the adoration chapel where Christ was present.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 14, 2004.

Stephen, I'm going to have continue to hold Catholic doctrine.

I'm sorry to disappoint.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 14, 2004.

"So, you see, I hope for your sake and ours who are tired of your mantra, as if it was genuinely meaningful, that you can not, in Christian conscience, perpetuate Feeney's doctrines as Roman Catholic. You cannot go on repeating, "there is no salvation outside the Church, and that baptism is necessary for salvation," if by those you hold fast to Feeney's private interpretation."

This is a very, very stange statement, anon.

I cannot repeat two doctrines, that baptism is necessary for salvation and that there's no salvation outside the Church? Why not? I'm supposed to, as a Catholic, hold the faith whole and entire, and confess to it before God and man.

What exactly was Feeney's interpretation? Is an interpretation even taking place? Doctrines are doctrines. Does 2+2=4 require interpretation, or is it just TRUE?

I'm committing no sin here. I'm only holding Catholic doctrine. Not MY Catholic doctrine as Stephen would like to interpret my words in a way I did not mean, but the Catholic Church's doctrine.

"And if you do, you mislead Catholics. And if you mislead Catholics, you get banned, because those are the rules."

Should we lead them to believe that Baptism is not required for salvation, and that there really is salvation outside the Church? Why? Wouldn't that be misleading them?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 14, 2004.

No one states that there is salvation anywhere except the Catholic Church. That's a false premise. Baptism of desire and baptism of blood both fulfill, however rarely, the doctrinal truth that baptism is required for every soul. Please don't pretend not to understand the real truth. You're merely being contemptuous of your Catholic brethren.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 14, 2004.

I'm not a foe, Gene. Friendly forces; I'm just an irritating person, that's all. Offer it up; I'm taking Lent off anyways.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 14, 2004.

I am trying to understand this arguement as the neophyte I am. My understanding is that the Council of Florence 1438-1445 lead by Pope Eugenius IV claimed with infallibility that:

714 It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt 25:41)

My current catechism meanwhile claims without infallibility

841 THE PLAN OF SALVATION ALSO INCLUDES THOSE WHO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CREATOR, IN THE FIRST PLACE AMONGST WHOM ARE THE MUSLIMS

839-840 WHEN SHE DELVES INTO HER OWN MYSTERY, THE CHURCH, THE PEOPLE OF GOD IN THE NEW COVENANT, DISCOVERS HER LINK WITH THE JEWISH PEOPLE..TO THE JEWS "BELONG THE SONSHIP, THE GLORY, THE COVENANTS, THE GIVING OF THE LAW, THE WORSHIP, AND THE PROMISES;

These two statements seem to contradict each other. The first is infallible and the second more modern ones seem like PC talk.

Thanks to the PC messages of the more modern and fallible teaching my son who is in Catholic school is learning the wonders of Buddhism. All religious faiths are discussed including atheism and students of each faith bring in materials relevent to their faith. A statue of Buddha was brought in and my wife's complaints about it were brushed off. We will be home schooling our 3 sons from here on out.

I am leaving the Episcopal church because it has let Bishops and priests "get with the times". This ecumenism is a bit disturbing. If true, it makes me wonder if all the missionaries who gave their lives converting people died in vain.

Correct me if I misunderstand this issue.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 14, 2004.

I don't think you misunderstand it.

Climb aboard the Ark of Salvation and fight. Become a Catholic and help us.

What we need is more neophytes willing to serve God and less scholars willing to serve man.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 15, 2004.

Emerald,

The book I got the reference from was 1952; the letter was written 1949.

It does not mention Feeney, but it was written in reponse to doctrines of his origin.

You cannot hold to Pope Eugene's infallible declaration alone, over and against all of the other Church teaching. I'll repeat them AGAIN:

"Singulari quadam" (1854) Pius IX

"Quanto conficiamur moerore" (1846) Pius IX

"Mystici Corporis Christi" (1946) Pius XII

"Lumen Gentium"

Redemptoris Missio (1990) John Paul II

You cannot hold an understanding of Eugene's declaration which is different from any and all of the teaching outlined in these. Otherwise, you are teaching heresy. You never address what you think of these, but I know you reject them all. I know you reject what John Paul II writes about salvation. I know you reject what Vatican II says about salvation. I know you reject what the current Catechism says about salvation. But rather than come out and say, "I reject them," you just keep silent.

I think I've said it before, but talking to you is like holding an argument against the refrigerator. Do you mean to tell me that you are so obtuse that you cannot tell the difference between the Church's understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and Fr. Feeney's? You do not see the equivocation?

That kind of ignorance is offensive in itself. At least tell me you know what an equivocation is.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 15, 2004.

BTW,

Emerald, I agree that that yellow card is teaching error. Whoever organized that should have read "Ut Unum Sint" first.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 15, 2004.

Eugene,

I've read that article from the silly "truecatholic" guy, but he is a strict exclusionist like you are. He confuses the Church's use of "efficacious," meaning that it is one's relationship with the Church that is efficacious towards their salvation, with meaning that a person must basically be a catechumen: "He gets a passport, a visa, a ticket, a flight reservation, and so forth."

He IS correct in saying, "Another person with an in-efficacious desire is a person who merely wants to go to Australia, but he does nothing about it at all." That is because, "no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth." Suprema Haec Sacra, and Vatican II.

But when one's desire to be in the Church is inhibited, not by laziness or sin, but by ignorance of the Truth of the Church, their desire may still be efficacious.

Incidentally, when people like you teach error, such that the developments in Singulari Quadam, Quanto conficiciamur Moerare, Suprema Haec Sacra, Mystici Corporis Christi, Lumen Gentium, and Redemptoris Missio are not binding, that you promote ignorance of the Truth of the Church.

David,

God bless you in your entry into the Catholic Church. You are correct that the Episcopal Church is moving farther and farther away from Christianity.

You are correct that the formulation by the Council of Florence is infallible. However, you are incorrect in believing that (a) the above statement contradict, (b) that the second are not infallible, and (c) that they are PC talk.

A. The statements are not in conflict. Neither Judaism nor paganism norheresy nor schizm can save, because in themselves they are not true, and we cannot be saved by an untruth. Nevertheless, the Council of Florence, while true, is incomplete. It omits, for example, the teaching of Pius IX: "--We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace."

Note for yourself that nothing outside of the Church--nothing besides "the power of divine light and grace,"--brings salvation. Hence the only manner by which a man thought to be Jewish could be saved, is in and through their invincible openness and relationship to the Church.

Also, the Catechism quotes you cited are in reversed order and are misleading. Why did you do that?

The full passage is as follows:

839: "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related tot he People of God in various ways." (Lumen Gentium 16)

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People - When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, (Nostra Aetate 4), "the first to hear the word of God." (quote from the Roman Missal) The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ"; (Romans 9:4-5) [I guess St. Paul was 'PC']. "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." (Rom 11:29)

840: And when one considers the future, God's people of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

841: "The Church's relationship with the Muslims." - "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom [Of course, besides the Jews] are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the on, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (Lumen Gentium 16)

Makes more sense when you read the whole thing, doesn't it? With respect to the Jews, the most controversial thing in there is a Bible quote. Well, can't argue with that.

With respect to the Muslims, of course God's plan of salvation includes them--that doesn't mean they're all saved, or that they're saved by default. There are no people who are not included in God's plan for salvation. CCC, #831: "Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole human race."

Besides that, the Church merely praises whatever the Muslims got right. Lumen Gentium: "The Church rejects nothing of what is true in other religions." Well, duh.

(b) David, you are incorrect in saying that those Catechism quotes are not infallible.

Any doctrine (as opposed to a discipline) inside the Catechism which comes from the Bible, or the documents of Vatican II (note the title: "Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium") are by default infallible.

In fact, the teachings of Lumen Gentium are infallible for the same reason as the teaching contained in the Council of Florence:

"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)"

The declaration in the Council of Florance is a Papal bull, but it is nevertheless a teaching by a bishop in an ecumenical council, whence it gets its infallibility. They had no formula for an Ex Cathedra dogma in the 15th century.

You see, Ex Cathedra is not = infallibility, but it is one kind of infallibility. Also infallible are, of course, the Bible (as taught by the Church), the Creed, and the teachings of Ecumenical Councils, of which Vatican II is one, and its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium is the cornerstone.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 15, 2004.

I hasten to add:

Whether or not a Magisterial teaching teaching has infallibility, it is nevertheless binding.

From the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

I also hasten to correct an error I made:

I wrote, "the documents of Vatican II (note the title: "Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium") are by default infallible."

This is false.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 15, 2004.

I hasten to correct myself again!

The above Canon Law quote only referse to "particular councils," as distinct from "ecumenical councils."

As the Catholic Encycllopedia states, "All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope."

Hence my original statement stands. (Awaits Emerald's flurry of Paul VI quotes).

It's my fault for not catching that.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 15, 2004.

Emerald,

The trouble isn't that what you guote is wrong, it's your interpretation of it. You refuse to understand that.

It's like you first quote a dictionary definition of what an apple is, and then say "see, this means that everyone who eats this red fruit is going to Hell". The definition of "apple" has nothing to DO with hell, it's just a fruit, and depending on the apple, might not even be RED, but you never acknowledge that you might even *possibly* be wrong. That's why I've come to despair you'll learn anything, just like the hard core Protestant believer, you've decided you are *ALREADY* right, so there's no reason to change. You should change, Emerald! Start assuming you are in sin and in ERROR, and you'll be o.k. What you are doing now is assuming your knowledge is TRUE, and assuming you are perfect in something is really almost sinful IMO, the sin of Pride, just like you know who.

David,

You should read other documents of the councils of the period, specifically how people are to not deal with Jews, and non- Christians, etc. It's not that they are wrong, but the times they are writing about do not apply today. Sort of like if the church had an anti-catapult law, one can read it, but it doesn't really apply now in the same way it would have then, no one USES catapults. One would have to say "what is the underlying principle they were getting across"? And then look to the new catechism to see what took its place (such as a no-nukes law)

Frank

P.s. remember the examples above are hypothetical

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 15, 2004.

Anon and Frank,

Thanks for the interesting perspective of the new Catechism. I assure you I wasnt trying to be nefarious in the order I posted things. I am not a lawyer by trade (thank God) and I am just now learning how much legaleze is involved in the Church teachings. I think you quote from Pious IX helps alot.

"--We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace."

This makes sense with my own internal conscience and feelings on God's mercy. The way I understand salvation is this. In school we all seek to get a 100% on tests. The Catholic Church is the only way one can obtain a 100%. An extremely pious person of another Christian faith might be able to obtain a 90% at best. Certain other non-christians likewise might be able to obtain an 80%. We don't know however what God considers a passing grade that leads to salvation. This way of thinking preserves my belief in God's mercy and also underscores the value of conversion and evangelization.

I do however feel that teaching any religion other than Catholicism in a Catholic school is a scandal. Presenting the one Truth along side half truths and outright falsehood is a travesty. Likewise our Bishops need to watch their embracing of other faiths because doing so can send the message to the faithful there is more than one way to salvation when there is only one BEST way.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 15, 2004.

I think at this point we are effectively here:

5. One of the much more effective approaches is to make out like the person who tenaciously holds the above two doctrines has absolutely no concept of the infinite mercy of God. They have no love; they feel no love.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 15, 2004.

David,

I'd agree, really. On this forum we quibble forever about wording of things, but my summary is: One definitely MAY be saved as a Catholic, and hopefully MAY be saved as anything else.

Emerald,

If you change that to:

5. the person who erroneously holds the above two doctrines has absolutely no understanding of what the church is teaching

You'd be on to something.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 15, 2004.

Better clarify that to save people a few posts,

5. the person who erroneously *interprets* the above two doctrines has absolutely no understanding of what the church is teaching

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 15, 2004.

Actually, I think that's what you're doing, not me. I'm just repeating doctrine. I don't claim to understand it, I just believe it's true.

You're the one with the superior understanding.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 15, 2004.

There is no salvation apart from Christ - who is the only way to the Father, the only one offering "salvation". No one else (Muhammed included) offered "salvation"...

And Christ founded a Church to lead people into this salvation. So it's a case-closed deduction: one savior, who founded one Church, with the sole mandate to bring people to the Father through himself in the Holy Spirit. That's what salvation is!

Now, if you define the "Church" as "the union of men with God the Father in Christ through the Holy Spirit" you'd be hard pressed - given the Gospels and all we know from his lips to conclude a priori that those saved are saved solely due to outward appearances or club membership.

I.e. some who apparently aren't salvation bound will find themselves to Christ's right hand, others who think they're salvation bound will wind up on his Left...

In the 13th century, those who knew the Church was Christ's ordinary means of salvation but chose to reject it anyway would be damned - just as anyone who knew 2+2=4 decided to assert it was 5 for the sake of winning an argument would still be wrong.

But nowhere then or subsequently did Pope and mystics claim that that formula meant those who for no fault of their own did not know Christ's Church would be damned.

Look at St Paul - he wasn't "evangelized" or converted by other Christians... Jesus himself appeared to him. Of course he was told to be baptised and so entered the Church...but had he died before reaching Damascus or shortly after being baptised he'd have been saved while going down in history as most like a bad guy.

Or the Centurion in the Gospels.. he wasn't a Jew (ordinary economy) but had more faith than anyone (extraordinary economy).

All this means: we have to evangelize (it's Christ's command) but we can't judge individual cases. We call people to salvation, to leave lives of sin and bondage...and it's true that most sin and bondage is found among those who are not within the confines of the Church... but mere membership alone doesn't guarantee finishing the race and keeping the faith. Nominal Catholics are just that: those who say "Lord, Lord" without doing the will of the Father!

And it's clear that no one enters Heaven without doing the Father's will!

We can be reasonably sure that salvation, being a gift, is far more likely within the visible confines of the Church, but we can't state unequivocally that "therefore" all others are certainly damned.

What we need is to understand the difference between ordinary and extraordinary economies of salvation: what is probable and what strictly speaking is POSSIBLE given grace (which included divine inspirations, motions of the Holy Spirit and angels).

Read St Peter (OK, read the whole New Testament...most of the questions raised are answered right there). He speaks of how men sin and the ravages sin effects on all peoples: Jews and gentiles alike. But if Jews can forfeit their gifts, despite all the advantages of having the Law and Prophets, how much more easily can pagans!

So without any malice at all to our Protestant brethren, the sheer fact that they have only 2 sacraments not 7 means they're at a serious disadvantage spiritually to persevere in the race, given the constant and equal assaults of the world, flesh and devil!

This doctrine of the Church isn't elitism. It is realism. Episcopalians can be nice as pie...but their priesthood isn't based on apostolic succession and thus their orders and all the rest of it isn't certain... anyone who knew Catholicism was the true church yet decided for whatever reason to not obey Christ ("go therefore and make disciples of ALL nations, teaching them to obey ALL my commands...") would in that instance cut themselves off until such time as they change prior to death.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 15, 2004.

Emerald,

Actually, I think that's what you're doing, not me. I'm just repeating doctrine. I don't claim to understand it, I just believe it's true

The trouble is, you DON'T repeate ALL the relevant doctrine, or you'd have to answer to anon's passages on the possible salvation of non-Catholics. You ONLY repeat the one line you feel supports your position. That's dishonest. It also means you believe you DO understand what God meant, or you wouldn't steadfastedly refuse to see anything that disagrees with your preconceived idea.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 15, 2004.

Frank says that

"The trouble is, you DON'T repeate ALL the relevant doctrine..."

And what exactly is it that I'm missing that's doctrine?

"...or you'd have to answer to anon's passages on the possible salvation of non-Catholics."

So there really is salvation outside the Church then, huh? That's what you're really saying, right?

"That's dishonest."

Of who, me or you?

"It also means you believe you DO understand what God meant, or you wouldn't steadfastedly refuse to see anything that disagrees with your preconceived idea."

What you call a pre-concieved idea of mine is nothing more or less than Catholic doctrine:

1. That there is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation.

That's all I've said here in this thread, and it's the same as Catholic doctrine. Now, what exactly was it that you are trying to tell me?

I'm actually feeling rather good about this. I think we've all arrived at a very special place. Spiritually, ecumenically... grammatically.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 15, 2004.

Joe, I agree.

Emerald,

Every intelligent and faithful Catholic knows that just because you are verbose and tenacious doesn't mean that you are speaking the truth (e.g. Luther). Sure, you believe that 1. there is no salvation outside the Church, and 2. Baptism is necessary for salvation (and so do we, yep) -- but those are the BIG PRINT; you simply fail to read the crucial fine print (due to spiritual myopia) which the Catholic Church wrote on the subjects for two milleniums (including the Universal Catechism, too recent for you?); therefore you do not fully understand the entire contract. As a result, you speak only half- truths,i.e. lies. Yes, Emerald, unfortunately that is your contribution to this dialectic.

-- T. Stephen (3T_Stephen0@bread.org), February 15, 2004.

"As a result, you speak only half- truths,i.e. lies."

So these two doctrines:

1. That there is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That baptism is necessary for salvation

...are half-truths and lies?

That's very interesting.

Stephen, you think there is salvation outside the Church, don't you?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.

"Every intelligent and faithful Catholic knows that just because you are verbose and tenacious doesn't mean that you are speaking the truth (e.g. Luther)."

Verbose... that's interesting. You don't like verbose, I take it. In relation to for instance the Baltimore Catechism, would you consider the CCC to be verbose in any regard? It is a lot thicker than any other catechism I have seen. Apparently, verbose is bad or good in a sort of subjective way; sort of determinable as good or bad based on an as-needed basis. It's bad for me, but good for the new catechism.

Ecumenism-in-action provides a roughly similiar anomoly. I can converse to the nonCatholic posters with relative ease, and in a very ecumenical manner while yet being one who staunchly believes that there is no salvation outside the Church. The proponents of Ecumenism, on the other hand, just want everyone banned who doesn't agree with them. I find that rather ironic.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.

There's sort of an unwritten rule: don't post three times in a row; it looks bad.

So let's do it then. Stephen says:

"Sure, you believe that 1. there is no salvation outside the Church, and 2. Baptism is necessary for salvation (and so do we, yep) -- but those are the BIG PRINT; you simply fail to read the crucial fine print (due to spiritual myopia)"

Predictable:

"6. Far out and the best approach, though, has to be this: to say "but I DO believe those doctrines, but..." and then proceed to explain how you mostly believe them, however not in exactly the same way, but it's still the same, just better developed, even though it's really not the same way, but, it's pretty much the same. It's improved."

That's basic Modernism.

You people wear me out. I'm going to go watch a movie. Goodnight.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.

Emerald,

It's the same thing over and over. People ask you to look at something other than the same one liner you're stuck on, and you requote your same two lines over and over without any thought on the rest of church documents or history that's been presented to you. What is the POINT of repeating yourself over and over?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 16, 2004.

Well Frank, the point would be to be loyal to Catholic doctrine, I guess.

Hey look, the Catholic Church has been repeating doctrine over and over for 2,000 years, so I don't know what the problem is with me repeating it several times over Catholic forum.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 16, 2004.

Emerald is not only untouchable; he's a new edition of the catechism all in one broken record.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 16, 2004.

Emerald,

Pope Benedict XIV was aiming at you when he said, "the pope orders, the cardinals do not obey, and the people do as they please."

Pope John Paul II will come up with a better one for you.

-- T. Stephen (3T_Stephen0@bread.org), February 16, 2004.

Emerald,

First, congrats to you and wife on your wonderful new baby!

Secondly, what is your definition of "Church" and what is your definition of "baptism"?

In other words, Feeney re-defined "Church" to be solely the visible one (the Church militant)- and absolutised this to mean excluding all souls known only to God who were in some way united to himself through the Son in the Holy Spirit...Holy Innocents, Good Thief, etc.

He also re-defined "baptism" to mean only by water...i.e. denying implicitly baptism of blood or desire... which obviously are "extraordinary economies of salvation" and thus, not something we can "bank on" or be complacent about and "suppose" those uncatechised, unevangelized pagans will get by default. Modernists when to the other equally untenable extreme of supposing that because an extraordinary economy of salvation exists, then we can suppose it is normative and the default mode...negating Christ's command FOR US to evangelize and baptize....

But it's not an aut/aut problem. It's a both/and.

Catholic teaching on this includes the simple distinction between the ordinary economy of God's grace: visible Church and sacraments and command for us to evangelize....as well as the extraordinary economy of God's grace which is up to Him to take care of...

Bottom line: we have to evangelize and preach the gospel etc. But we can't say de fide that for certain all non-baptized Catholics are damned...because it's simply NOT TRUE. Probable doesn't mean "certain" - which leaves the door open to hope, not despair.

Otherwise you get the situation of souls being lost for no fault of their own...and God's justice being neither just nor merciful and you also have a problem comparing this belief with everything CHRIST said when discussing the final judgement and the basis upon which souls enter Heaven or not.

Precisely because salvation is a gift, it can be given in diverse manners... we can bank on the efficacy of sacraments and the visible Church...but we can't exclude other direct interventions by God himself.

I get this...and most great, evangelizing Catholics I know get it too...and we're not sitting on our hands thinking "oh hum ecclesia supplex... I'll do nothing and call it virtue." You just find us placing people's salvation in God's hands after doing all we can to direct them to the good shepherd.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 16, 2004.

Thanks Joe; hope all is ok with you on your side.

"Secondly, what is your definition of "Church" and what is your definition of "baptism"?"

The fast answer would be the Mystical Body of Christ.

"In other words, Feeney re-defined "Church" to be solely the visible one (the Church militant)- and absolutised this to mean excluding all souls known only to God who were in some way united to himself through the Son in the Holy Spirit...Holy Innocents, Good Thief, etc."

I don't think he did that. But really, this isn't a Feeney question; it's a question about how two particular doctrines have come under assault in our times, the one being that there is no salvation outside the Church, and the other about the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

Here's why the issue comes up. We have these two doctrines, but then we look around them and see almost no trace Catholicism left in common society... I'm talking about society at large, in the grocery store, on the freeway, and just basically the whole world from where you stand. Nobody cares, really. Baptism is nothing to most people, and Catholic doctrine is even less to them than that. There's quite a few people that have a little knowledge of God, but for the most part their collection of doctrine is a convoluted whatever or who knows.

So some Catholic comes along and says that

1. There is no salvation outside the Church, and that

2. Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Every other Catholic knows, or should know, that these are Catholic doctrines; there's no way around it. It's undeniably de fide material; so the other Catholics look back to the people in the grocery store and the freeway and in the world and suddenly think "Holy smoke, nobody's going to make it!"

Then they stop and think "well that's ridiculous" and they point back at you and say "hey, your damning people; that can't be right."

But see, I never damned anyone to Hell; I merely repeated doctrine. As for myself, I actually do believe those two doctrines straight on and at face value. If I look around me and take note that almost no one cares about doing the will of God, the question is, does this mean that I can deny those two doctrines?

Again, does that really mean I can deny those two doctrines? It does not.

People don't like coming to this awareness, that's all. But I didn't damn anyone; I determined or judged or decided no-one's fate.

Let me tell you this, though, in case you haven't noticed it: those same people who are so upset about other people being considered damned and lost have no problem damning me for repeating those two doctrines. They have decided my fate and judged my heart. This isn't whining, because honestly it doesn't bother me; I just point out the irony in it:

1. If you repeat and hold doctrines concerning salvation, people say you're judging people and their hearts when you haven't named a single soul's intentions or final destination.

2. For this, they judge heart, your intentions and sometimes even your final destination.

Here's another string of absurdities:

1. If you repeat and hold doctrines concerning salvation, they want to say that there are ways around these doctrines because the visible lines of the Church are blurry in their estimation or understanding.

2. For this, they want you visibly tossed out of the Church. Suddenly the exact location of the fence of the vine becomes crystal clear as your limp body floats gracely and visibly over this now highly visible fence for all to see. lol!

These questions don't originate with Feeney; they orginate with the reality of Catholic doctrine vs. the reality of a world that has found itself virtually bereft of Christendom and steeped in paganism. It's really just that simple; nobody believes anymore.

Who is going to be saved and who isn't? Hell, I don't know. I never claimed I did; I'm just not going to stop believing those two doctrines, that's all. I don't care what anybody says, I just believe them. I judge nobody.

When they say I'm not being honest and don't want understand the fullness of this doctrine, I'll just tell them the truth, which is that they are perplexed by this dilemma and are just using their human reason to try to make sense of something they can't understand, and as a result, they usually do end up denying doctrine and saying they didn't, and claiming the magisterium said they could when it didn't. So they get mad at me and damn me and kick me out of the Church.

If people want to hang their salvation on a mystery and not upon Faith, they do so at their own risk, but don't blame me if I say so.

Good to see you must be doing alright Joe; hope all is well.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 17, 2004.

"I actually do believe those two doctrines straight on and at face value."

That is your error. First is believing that your interpretation is priviledged, i.e., "straight on and at face value," when in fact the Church has explicitly denied you the right to take that option. "This dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it." Second error is that you reject the Church's teaching about the true value of those doctrines. "Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing."

"This dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it." Either you believe them in the way the Church understands them, or else you do not believe them at all. Indeed, you reject those doctrines as the Church understands them. You replace them with your own pets, and you aritificially constrict the domain of their definition to the beginning of the first word and the end of the last word.

Look, I can do that too: "All men are now undeservedly justified by the gift of God, through the redemption wrought in Christ Jesus." Romans 3:24.

That's doctrine too, and infallible to boot. So I guess that means I don't have to accept anything that looks like it could contradict. The sentence is perfect and needs no interpretation. Universal salvation! Weeee. (You don't think justification = salvation? Well, too bad--it's OBVIOUS that justification = salvation, and I cannot deny that or accept anything that would constitute a denial).

Oh, wait, here comes the next sentence: "Through his blood, God made him the means of expiation for all who believe."

Your brand of assent is mere Biblical fundamentalism, extended to a Church document. I found this understanding echoed by Dave Armstrong, a Catholic apologist. He writes,

"Protestantism and fundamentalism are two different things, but with much overlap in practice (i.e., sociologically). Protestant ideas flow from the inherent principles of Protestantism (sola Scriptura, private judgment, sola fide, et al). The fundamentalist psychological mindset, on the other hand, is not inherent to Protestantism, but brought to it, and is logically or mentally prior to it (even though in practice it is characteristic of and largely confined to a large sub-group of the 'conservative' or 'traditionalist' Protestants). It is (ultimately or immediately) anti-intellectual and psychologically paranoid, with a huge fortress mentality (similar to right-wing wacko stuff or quack science or secular versions of conspiratorialism).

The 'fundamentalist mindset' in either Protestantism or Catholicism (but especially in the latter) is an aberration and a foreign element. It doesn't logically or conceptually flow from the intrinsic principles of either system. But it is much more typically characteristic (i.e., it coincides or co-exists with), a certain sort of Protestant (derived historically from the fundamentalist-modernist controversies of the late 1800s up through the Scopes Trial in 1925 and beyond). 'Half-converts' usually learn this type of outlook in a Protestant environment, as far as its precepts go."

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 17, 2004.

Well, then, in the "fundamentalist mindset," Emerald belongs to the Protestants. LOL

-- (r@e.x), February 17, 2004.

As stated above, this discussion is futile. I feel like I'm talking to a parrot -

Me: hello bird Bird: there's no salvation outside the Catholic church!!! Me: Oh, really? Why? Bird: there's no salvation outside the Catholic church!!! Me: is it possible that you are misinterpreting that? Bird: there's no salvation outside the Catholic church!!! Me: Hmmm, can you say anything else? Bird: there's no salvation outside the Catholic church!!!

And so on....

Anyhow Emerald, I think you need a hobby.

Enjoy...

-- Mike A (none@none.net), February 17, 2004.

Mike,

Watch out! Emerald will soon post a new rebuttal:

1. There is no salvation outside the Church.

2. Baptism is necessary for salvation.

-- (r@e.x), February 17, 2004.

1. There is no salvation outside the Church.

2. Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Prophets, the lot of you.

I said:

"I actually do believe those two doctrines straight on and at face value."

You say:

"That is your error."

To me, that says it all. My deepest apologies one and all, for holding the Faith whole and undefiled.

The real tough part though, is living it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 17, 2004.

IMHO, your thoughts are so complex as to confuse even yourself.

-- (blue@red.diamond), February 17, 2004.

"IMHO, your thoughts are so complex as to confuse even yourself."

That's the beauty of Faith; it's so simple.

"Anyhow Emerald, I think you need a hobby."

You know what, I was thinking the same thing. Do you have any suggestions?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 17, 2004.

Emerald,

How 'bout?

duct tape Art / duct taping yourself

collecting tumbleweeds

dumpster diving

bull riding

souping up plastic toy cars

collecting plastic spoons

eating things that move

collecting toe nail clippings

collecting Tic Tac boxes

to begin with.

-- (blue@red.diamond), February 18, 2004.

"First is believing that your interpretation is priviledged, i.e., "straight on and at face value," when in fact the Church has explicitly denied you the right to take that option."

It's not an interpretation; it's doctrine.

If not, then interpret this:

"There are three Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity"

What's your interpretation?

The only reason anybody would want an interpretation of a fact, or in this case a divinely revealed truth, is so they can get out of something. I know this because I have kids.

"This dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it."

You're staring straight down the barrel of these Ex Cathedra, infallible statements of the Supreme Pontiffs of the Universal Church:

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302)

"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." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)

How you are trying to skirt these infallible statements is to apply your own private interpretation to statements of selected Popes regarding the subject of ignorance, isolated and taken out of context, and making them fit with your personal concept of salvation. In particular, the choice of Mystici Corporis Christi is very odd in that that particular document goes out of it's way to restate that the Catholic Church IS the Mystical Body of Christ.

What's letting slip here is that there is no real respect for the infallibility of the Roman Pontiffs. There's only infallibility for the current Roman Pontiff is what I'm hearing, and not really an infallibility that's deliniated in scope to what is defined and declared to be an occasion of infallibly at Vatican I, but to virtually all statements, some of which are undefinables, like mysterious relationships and such things. All this according to Lumen25, a pastoral document.

So I stand my ground, and stand it on the infallible declarations from the Papacy. You stand yours on your own interpretations and by interepreting selected documents to your liking, and by lending an infallible character to pastoral documents.

"Second error is that you reject the Church's teaching about the true value of those doctrines."

I don't understand what you are getting at. Do you mean the Church has valued those doctrines at $1.98, and I'm looking for a discount? I don't know what you mean; seriously I don't.

"Your brand of assent is mere Biblical fundamentalism, extended to a Church document. I found this understanding echoed by Dave Armstrong, a Catholic apologist."

Well, then you have found an understanding that does not come from the magisterium of the Church. I would like to see his papers from the Vatican. Until I do, he has about as much right to explain Catholic doctrine as you do, or I do, or anyone else. Zero.

There is no graced office in the Catholic Church called Catholic Apologist. If you've got a little cash, you can park yourself in a couple thousands square feet of concrete tilt-up, lift some walls, hang some t-bar, drop carpet and desks and get to work. There is no authority, though, that comes from the Church through the position of Catholic lay apologist. Why in the world, when talking to a laymen such as myself who you believe is a victim of his own private opinions, would you reference another layman as an authority? Especially when it's supposed to be magisterium this, magisterium that.

I have certainly noticed that when it comes to referencing sources of orthodoxy, more often than not, it's another layman telling us what orthodox is and what orthodox isn't. That can't be right.

I'm merely repeating doctrine as infallibly declared by the Supreme Magisterium of the Universal Church.

Read Vatican I, read the declarations of, and definitions of doctrine. See infallibility. See truth. Accept truth. Tell others. Pray.

If I were to listen to you, and to continue upon your course of action, I would eventually find myself questioning these doctrines

1. There is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation.

...and serving donuts at an ecumenical get together. I know this is the case, because all the people running those things are saying the same things you are.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 18, 2004.

collecting tumbleweeds

You've got my attention.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 18, 2004.

"The only reason anybody would want an interpretation of a fact, or in this case a divinely revealed truth, is so they can get out of something. I know this because I have kids."

LOL. Ain't that the truth!

-- FGC (FGCC4@yahoo.com), February 18, 2004.

Emerald,

It's not an interpretation; it's doctrine.

If not, then interpret this:

"There are three Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity"

I was laughing too hard to finish your post. Seriously. I doubt if there's ANYTHING in Christianity that's as misunderstood as the Trinity. Reading your line someone would say "o.k., there are THREE separate persons. Christians therefore do NOT believe in one God but THREE!

Oh wait, we DO believe in one God don't we Emerald, not three separate ones? How do you explain that? Doesn't this line speak for itself??

I did see you've re-quoted your favorite two lines, and still fail to understand why that is insufficient. I suppose now you'll start adding:

"There are three Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity"

To all your posts and telling everyone there are three separate people in the Trinity and that there is NOT one God though right? Emeraldism gets stranger by the day.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 18, 2004.

"I was laughing too hard to finish your post. Seriously."

Hey, I finally actually said something funny. See, if you keep trying, eventually you will succeed. Even a broken clock is infallible twice a day.

But maybe we should add the doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity to the list; that's not a bad idea. After all, look what the Athansius Creed talks about immedia tely after the first opening line, about the Holy Trinity. At this point it should be coming together. Or not.

But see, even I think we're at a natural impasse here, and think that to proceed further is pointless. Lent's coming, people are writhing in fits of nausea with the mere mention of this topic, and it must be contagious because I'm starting to get it too. So I'll quit already; pray that I have the strength to quit telling the truth.

Frank, whoever ends up in Heaven will end up there because God is all good, all just and all merciful. Whoever ends up in Hell will end up there because God is all good, all just and all merciful. Agreed?

Btw, made ya laugh.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 18, 2004.

Emerald,

Kind of funny, you aren't using the Nicene creed. I liked this line:

And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting

So you believe that man EARNS his salvation, he doesn't need God's grace right? It says so right there! That's not Catholicism, it Emeraldism.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 18, 2004.

Context Emerald...the popes of the 13th and 14th century are reacting to men who for time immemorial were exposed to the Gospel and single Church and who began to doubt or leave... and thus, were in the situation of someone who begins asserting 2+2=5.

But neither Pope mentioned or knew of men beyond Europe and the known lands...none assert that men are damned for not paying allegiance to a Gospel and Church they didn't even know existed.

You may believe that 15,000 years worth of American indians all died and went to hell, but apart from these bulls of 2 popes taken out of context, what doctrine do you stand on? Taken in context of course, the text is clear: men are judged by what they do based on what they know (cf. Wisdom and Romans).

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 18, 2004.

Catholics,

Mini-Poll:

Which one best describes Emerald/Emeraldism/Emerald-type? and Why?

a. a faithful Catholic

b. a Catholic with bad theology

c. a Catholic with invincible ignorance

d. a heretic

e. a schismatic

f. a non-Catholic

g. a Protestant

h. other

i. a combination of __________

-- (?@?.?), February 18, 2004.

If you please:
We aren't interested in discussing Emerald. That's practically all he ever comes here to discuss. This thread is titled ''Is Salvation possible outside the Church?''

No one I know has shed light on this question. Least of all Emerald. Yet we are at 100+ postings.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 18, 2004.

Emerald,

You wrote, "I said:

'I actually do believe those two doctrines straight on and at face value.'

You say:

'That is your error.'

To me, that says it all. My deepest apologies one and all, for holding the Faith whole and undefiled."

I ask for your apology, because you quoted me out of context and twisted my words to make me say something I didn't. When I said, "That is your error," I did NOT mean "believ[ing] those two doctrines." You know, as I do, that I hold those doctrines firmly (I hold ALL the Church's doctrines) and I have said nothing besides that we must accept all of the Church's teaching, not a part of it. So how dare you imply that I reject any Church teaching. Because I know, what you do not (yet), that in rejecting even a single doctrine, I would reject the same God-given authority which gives voice to them all, and so one can only be in contradiction who says they believe in the Church and reject doctrines--whether they are defined infallibly or not.

Look, I found something that might help. Let us accept that there is no salvation outside the Church; no one who is outside of the Church can be saved. Clear. Agreed? Agreed.

Whence a legitimate question must be asked by all Catholics who are subject to the Church's teaching: "If those who are not not members of the Church can be saved, what is their relationship with the Church outside of which there is no salvation?" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, v.12, Salvation, Necessity of the Church For) [Emphasis added]

This is not a contradictory question, nor is there any fallacy or slight-of-hand. There is no deception here. This is not the product of mere theologians but, a necessary element of the Church's (yes, the Church--the same one through whom the Lord defined these dogmas) true understanding of the dogmas.

The clarifying point is that the Church is not a bucket, where things only possibly inside or out. If it were true, then Pius IX-- who I have been incorrectly identifying as Pius X--would not have written the phrase, "those who are in no way in the Church," in his Syllabus of Errors.

Note: Interesting that Pius IX, who wrote the Syllabus, also wrote Quanto Conficiamur Moerore.

The postulate, which is truly the mind of the Church, and which is no more contradictory and certainly no more absurd than the groundless "sacraments-after-death" theory, is simply this: there exist states which are neither "Outside the Church" nor "Member of the Church."

"...by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer," Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi

"God['s]... supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore.

"For such people 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;" John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio

From these and other teachings of the Church, we can come to light of the following: (from the New Catholic Encyclopedia)

(a) "Actual members of the Church are those whoa re recognized as such by the Church herself, namely, all Catholics..."

(b) "Radically joined to the Church are all validly baptized non- Catholics..."

(c) "Belonging to the Church by intention and desire are all non- Christians in the state of grace... And if they are actually saved, it is through the Church that they are saved, for there is no salvation except by her mediation... These are not members of the Church... but belong to her and are sufficiently joined to her to receive divine life and salvation through her." It must also be said, however, that "they cannot be sure of their salvation." - Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi

Some concluding notes:

First, just because I have been writing here extensively about the possibility of that non-members of the Catholic Church, who are nevertheless not Outside of her, to be saved, it should not be assumed that I am optimistic in this regard. Frankly, notwithstanding our Lord's assertion, that "I have not come to condemn the world," it is also true that the path to the Kingdom is narrow, and few find it.

For an excellent article concerning this, read Cardinal Avery Dulles' The Population of Hell, in First Things.

I am in a position to defend the Church's position against Emerald, not because of optimism in regard to wide entry into the Kingdom of Heaven (though I can only hope), but because of the violent transgressions and infidelity of Emerald's doctrine. He heinously manipulates doctrines, pitting infallible against 'fallible', pope against pope, century against century, Church against Church--creating illusions and false nightmares by which to cheat God's, and indeed, his own children surely, into his cesspool of cafeteria Catholicism.

"They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar ON EARTH." Paul XII, Mystici Corporis Christi

To be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR: I do not defend optimism about the salvation of all or many; I defend only orthodoxy to our mother Church on Earth.

Second, one must ignore all of Emerald's prattlings about my position or character--for he calls me intelligent, even scholarly. And he associates me or my position--which is nothing more or less than the Church's, for I and she both fear the Lord--with grievious sins of false ecumenism, the destruction of Catholic works of beauty, and the rejection of the past.

ALL ARE DECEPTIONS. None are true. If I were intelligent I could be a good deceiver, but I am neither. I am always correcting myself, and I make foolish contradictions and I am always going back and revising and correcting myself, so that I am more and more in communion with the Church. I am a parrot of the Church, no less than Emerald-- certainly more: a parrot with a better memory, a parrot who apologizes for his mistakes, a parrot who squawks every word instead of just the first half of every sentence.

Third, and finally, anyone who says that I reject any doctrine or dogma of the Church--or prepare it for rejection, or isolate it, or minimize it, or twist it--is a LIAR AND A THIEF, who tries to steal victory from the teeth of inexorable truth.

And thanks to the revelation of my mistake: that Pius IX is Pius IX and is not Pius X, I can demonstrate finally that All of the Church's teaching is utterly compatible and presents no contradiction. For Pius wrote, as the same person, of one mind, the following truths, none of which can be denied without the pain of schizm:

"15. [it is an error to believe that] 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. [it is an error to believe that] 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. [it is an error to believe that] 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.

"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." -Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 18, 2004.

?.?,

Emerald is a schizmatic Catholic. We can say nothing of the vincibility, or otherwise, of his errors. He is not a heretic. I am wrong to have called him that in the past.

"Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 18, 2004.

I must add, that if my last long post is not read completely, and understood as a whole, it will surely be misinterpreted. Hence, Emerald, I ask that if you respond, please do not do so until reading the entire post, and futher, do not follow your custom of responding to each line individually, as if it were seperate from or prior to the whole.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 18, 2004.

anon,

"a schizmatic Catholic"

a schismatic would technically be a non-Catholic, right? just like the schismatics of the 11th Century -- the Eastern Orthodox Church. I'm wondering why you combined schizmatic and Catholic; seems like an oxymoron.

-- Patrick (isleofman@earthlink.net), February 18, 2004.

Whatever happened to original sin? I thought that all of us except Our Lady were born with original sin, which prevented us from entering heaven and could only be removed through the sacrament of baptism. That's why the Church taught that unbaptized babies went to limbo, not heaven. Even today, the CCC says, "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them."

Who could be more innocent than a baby? And who could be more invincibly ignorant than a baby? But innocence and invincible ignorance do not excuse a baby from sacramental baptism, so why should they excuse an adult from sacramental baptism?

We must recognize any statements to the contrary for what they are: pure sentimentalism that Catholics cannot accept as official doctrine because they would put the Church in schism with her past, thereby destroying the dogma of infallibility.

-- The Sane Trad (sanetrad@yahoo.com), February 18, 2004.

Sorry to interrupt. I was reading A Catholic Encycolpedia (Attwater)
today and read something I thought was interesting.

"Baptism of the Unborn
If there is not a probable hope that a child can be baptized after
birth, Baptism may be administered in the womb: in the case of a head
presentation, on the head; in other presentations on the part
presented, but then it has to be again baptized conditionally
if it is living on complete delivery. Should the
mother die in labour, the child is to be extracted from the womb
and, if certainly living, baptized absolutely; if life is doubtful, conditionally.
An aborted fetus must also be baptized, unconditionally or
conditionally according to circumstances."

I've also seen in an old medical book (i believe written in the 1800's)
Sketchings of intruments used by midwives thoughout the centuries to baptize babies in the womb.

I learn something new every day :)
Just sharing,
FGC

-- FGC (FGCC4@yahoo.com), February 18, 2004.

Thanks for the info, FGC. It shows how the Church regarded sacramental baptism as crucial for salvation. I don't see that today.

-- The Sane Trad (sanetrad@yahoo.com), February 18, 2004.

Sane Trad,

Baptism in voto is sacramental. A baby cannot desire in the same sense as an adult.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 19, 2004.

Sane Trad,

I should say that, orthodox Catholics believe official doctrines because they're official doctrines. Traditionalists reject doctrines because they feel--(sentiment)--that they're not conservative enough, even when Popes, such as Pius IX, taught all doctrines together without contradiction.

Believing that the Church is in schizm with her past is contradictory because (a) the divine authority of the Magisterium is the same as it was at all ages; to reject teachings now implicitly rejects the authority by whuch past dogmas were proclaimed, (b) the medieval Church would be in schizm with it's past, because it held numerous doctrinal formulations that were not known in ancient Christianity (c) the so-called "novelties"--in liturgy or doctrine-- really aren't, because have their roots in the Fathers or Scripture.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 19, 2004.

"(b) the medieval Church would be in schizm with it's past, because it held numerous doctrinal formulations that were not known in ancient Christianity (c) the so-called "novelties"--in liturgy or doctrine-- really aren't, because have their roots in the Fathers or Scripture."

Today we don't have a problem with schizm with the past, we have
apostasy. Most church officials do not believe Catholic doctrine which
has always been held everywhere by everyone since the age
of the Apostles. Nothing has been held infallibly by the Church
that wasn't in the Apostolic Deposit of Faith,
i.e., "ancient Christianity".
The Church will continue to proclaim Truth, but not necessarily churchmen. That is why we must hold fast to Tradition.

God bless,
FGC

-- FGC (FGCC4@yahoo.com), February 19, 2004.

FCG,

Today we don't have a problem with schizm with the past, we have apostasy. Most church officials do not believe Catholic doctrine

In the first place, this would most likely be heresy, NOT apostacy. Secondly, show some data if you are going to say MOST church officials (anything). This really is an ignorant statement. What religion do you claim to be, btw?

That is why we must hold fast to Tradition.

Catholics DO hold fast to Tradition. Schismatic "traditionalists" hold fast to "tradition", NOT Tradition. A rite of mass is NOT Tradition.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 19, 2004.

Sane Trad,

I assume, by "sacramental Baptism," you mean the whole enchilada-- water, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," right?

Absolutely necessary, you say?

Let's look at the Catechism of Trent:

"should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

Oopsie on you. Read more here: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/florence.html

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 19, 2004.

We're constantly challenged by so-called traditionalists to prove the Church has remained true to Sacred Tradition, after the 2nd Vatican Council.

So ignorant have these challengers become, that now were supposed to be in apostasy.

Now, if these Goody Two-Shoes would only say, ''The Church is full of sinners,'' I'd be tempted to agree. Sin is everywhere. The Church is Holy; but too many members are sinners. Me, for instance. I'm not proud of it; I'm sorry.

Is the CREED all over and finished? Are the seven sacraments finished? Are they forgotten? Do we no longer worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, ONE GOD?

Is the Mother of God no longer venerated or prayed to? With real FAITH? Do we keep the feasts of the saints, and the holy days? You say they're over; we no longer have Lent? No longer celebrate the great holidays and offer up prayer?

Is Holy Week NOT coming up soon, with Ash Wednesday, and Good Friday and the stations of the Cross? Aren't Catholics bound to the Easter Duty anymore? To fast and abstain?

Has divorce been allowed since Vatican II? Or have abortion and birth control become Catholic rights?

Does the Church forbid reading the scriptures? Are we forbidden to wear scapulars and medals? No more Rosary? Or attend Mass? Are priests now ordained by non-Catholic bishops? Are they now free to marry if they wish? Do they preach free love, or the sinful life?

Did everything change for the worse after Vatican II? Did sin come into the world after the Council; before that we never sinned at all ? ? ? Are we all doomed; in apostasy?

Come on; get together, sane and insane trads. Lower the boom on us; you're holding all the cards. Condemn us!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2004.

If you ever come to a consensus on whether it's schism or heresy that tradtional Catholics have fallen into, I'll simply ask whether it is of your office, as lay people, to make such determinations.

Should this not be left to the magisterium of the Church and not be concluded based upon the assumptions and private interpretations of the laity of this forum?

After all, all I've really done in this thread is to repeat two well known doctrines of the Faith, namely that

1. There is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Now it seems to me that repeating said doctrine is not at all sufficient evidence to place one in schism or heresy.

You guys aren't praying hard enough because I'm still weak and given to posting the same doctrines again here.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 19, 2004.

If schismatic "traditionalists" really are Traditional, then they would be doing the Tradition of OBEYING the Pope.

Pope Pius IX declared, "The Tradition? I am the Tradition!"

Similarly, whatever Pope John Paul II promulgates and enacts is Tradition. The Vicar of Christ on earth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, embodies Christ's declaration, "I am the Lord of the Sabbath."

The problem is ... the schismatic "traditionalists" consider themselves ABOVE the Pope, especially this holy and humble Pope we have right now.

We all know what happened to Lucifer when he went into evil schism.

-- (Papist@catholic.forum), February 19, 2004.

"Whatever happened to original sin?"

I'm glad you brought this up, SaneTrad. I like the name btw; it's a welcome offset to my insanity. I'm inclined to wonder if the Cross is where insanity and brilliance meet, but I could be way off; it's just an opinion.

At any rate, I'm glad you brought it up because I was wondering if the recognition of Original Sin wouldn't be the next domino to fall in a sequence of failing Faith. But in a way, it seems sort of a prior failure to fully posit Original Sin that leads people speculate about the well being of souls based on natural and not supernatural grace and virtues in the first place.

Is it the absence of the awareness of Original Sin that leads people to downplay the role of the Sacraments, or does the downplay of the role of the Sacraments lead to a loss of the awareness of the existence of Original Sin?

It's true: if the CCC states what it states concerning the fate of unbaptised babies, then how could possibly fare better for the unbaptised adult who, no matter how hard they have tried, according to Scripture has sinned at least seven times a day? How could a such a person over the course of years of Actual Sin fare better than the baby? Both have the one thing in common: the unattended-to state of being still in Original Sin.

Next in line: the calling into question of Actual Sin in one respect or another? Who knows.

It's best to hold the Faith from the beginning I suppose.

-- The Insane Trad (emerald1@cox.net), February 19, 2004.

"The problem is ... the schismatic "traditionalists" consider themselves ABOVE the Pope, especially this holy and humble Pope we have right now."

This is one of those I can't think of anything else to say rebuttals. It's argument by attitude.

However, it is pretty easy to turn around and use the weapon of the opponent against him:

Papist, by calling Catholics who hold to doctrine "schismatics" for doing so, you consider yourself ABOVE the Pope in declaring that which is only his right to declare. Traditional Catholicism has not been excommunicated by the Pope, so therefore, ought not ye neither declare them such.

"We all know what happened to Lucifer when he went into evil schism."

The proper theological term for Lucifer's rebellion is schism?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 19, 2004.

"If schismatic "traditionalists" really are Traditional, then they would be doing the Tradition of OBEYING the Pope."

I hate to break it to you, but guess what... I can't think of one way in which I have disobeyed this Pope. Not one.

Not even one.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 19, 2004.

You don't understand either the doctrine of holy baptism or of Original sin. From your point of view, insane trad, redemtion is limited. You deny the All- Knowing and All-Powerful God. You forget the words of Jesus Christ: ''God can raise children to Abraham from the very stones of the road.''

Do not place limits on God's wisdom and mercy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 19, 2004.

"You don't understand either the doctrine of holy baptism or of Original sin. From your point of view, insane trad, redemtion is limited. You deny the All- Knowing and All-Powerful God. You forget the words of Jesus Christ: ''God can raise children to Abraham from the very stones of the road.''"

Has it ever occurred to you that you may might be wrong in this regard?

Do not place limits on God's wisdom and mercy.

Has it occurred to you that this is exactly what I am fighting against? That to go soft on a doctrine is to do exactly that?

Think inside the box, Gene.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 19, 2004.

Schismatic "traditionalists" CLEARLY show signs of invincible ignorance. They desperately need to be RE-cathechized.

-- (Papist@catholic.forum), February 19, 2004.

I assume, by "sacramental Baptism," you mean the whole enchilada-- water, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," right?

Right.

Absolutely necessary, you say?

Right.

Let's look at the Catechism of Trent: "should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

Oopsie on you.

No "oopsie" about it. I am fully aware that "baptism of desire" has been a theological speculation since about 250 A.D. The situation it addresses is so rare today that it does not even warrant any mention. But what has happened is that it has been broadened to include Jews, Moslems, Hindus, etc. who the Church insists that -- even though they do not want to be baptized -- really do unconciously desire to be baptized and would explicitly ask for it if God were to hold them over the fires of hell and say, "Be baptized or else!"

Father Feeney correctly saw how "baptism of desire" would destroy the Church's teaching on the necessity of sacramental baptism.

-- The Sane Trad (sanetrad@yahoo.com), February 19, 2004.

"Father" Feeney was excommunicated. Some role model you aspire to.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 19, 2004.

Feeney made a vow of obedience to the Church. He forgot he made this vow. He DISOBEYED summonses to go to Rome; too afraid to account for his Rigorist Error, too afraid to meet his judge -- the righteous Pope.

"Father Feeney correctly saw..."

Feeney INCORRECTLY saw. PERIOD.

-- (Papist@catholic.forum), February 19, 2004.

"Father" Feeney was excommunicated. Some role model you aspire to."

Frank, this is too easy:

"St. Athanasius was excommunicated. Some role model you aspire to."

And he was, too. Five times; falsely obviously. Not that Feeney was a saint... I have absolutely no idea if he is or not. But he was a priest, so there is no need to put quotation marks around his name as if he wasn't, especially considering he had been reconciled to the Church.

The role model here, if you want to call it that, is not a person but two points of Catholic doctrine.

Again, I never brought up Feeney; I simply restated two doctrines. The mentioning of Feeney is just a strategy to make it look like the holding of these doctrines at face value has been ex communicated via the persona of Fr. Leonard Feeney. In other words, throw the doctrine out with Feeney like a baby with the bathwater.

Not to mention that he was "reconciled" to the Church. Not to mention he recanted nothing when he was reconciled, which means he wasn't in heresy. Not to mention that the loss of belief in these two doctrines...

1. That there is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation

...have happened whether Feeney had ever existed or not. They're also still true whether he existed or not.

Those are Catholic doctrines, independent of Feeney's existence.

This ain't about Feeney. It's about the loss of belief in Catholic doctrine. If people lose belief in these doctrines, the Faith is dominoes from there on out. Look around you.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 19, 2004.

I thought you were going to drop it Emerald? It's a shame your resolve failed. It's no suprise you can't tell the difference between St. Athanasius and Fr. Feeney, you haven't heard anything else anyone's tried to tell you. Another wasted post.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 19, 2004.

Keep praying, man. Couldn't hurt.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 19, 2004.

Is it any wonder that your entire thread uses no Scripture to find the Truth ?

"But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men".

"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

Jim

-- Jim Teacher (Jim@aol.com), February 20, 2004.

Well, since I'm tired of this goofiness, and certainly Emerald is as well (since he as resorted to using only his CTRL+C and CTRL+v keys), I think I'll stop from trying to reinvent the weel. A clear explanation about the history Fr. Feeney's excommunication, and the elements of baptism of desire present in the early councils and elsewhere in the Church, one can read the following articles on this rather extensive collection: 'Matt1618's Apologetics on Ultra-traditionalists; No Salvation Outside the Church: Its Meaning From here on out, I myself will cease writing original content on this matter, and will counter Emerald's cutting and pasting of his own posts with my own continued reference of all concerned to this excellent resource for Catholics faithful to the Church. Emerald and friends are for that matter simply untouchable, for they have cease to use genuine arguments long ago. If one cites the Church, they deny her authority; if one cites an apologist, they deny his authority because he is not the Church. The final result is a reigning individualist caprice that rules over their lives. I continue also to ask the moderators to reinstate the ban on Emerald and all of his peers: Isabel, Sane Trade, and FGC, and anyone else who would state, in schizm, that, "It should be self-evident for Catholics that non-magisterial and/or non-infallible documents must be seen in light of and in subjection to infallible Magisterial documents of the Church."

To which Matt1618 replies:

"This so-called ‘self-evident’ statement is a danger to all Catholics. What Adam proposes as ‘Self evident’ is the foundation of an error similar to that found in Protestantism. Protestantism says that it is up to individuals to be in subjection to only infallible Scripture. There is no need for an interpreter. It is up to each and everyone to decide." There is further explanation at http://matt1618.freeye llow.com/adam.html Given this, I pray that the moderators will begin purging the forum of Emerald's and other's schizmatic material, and make this forum safe from "danger to all Catholics."

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 20, 2004.

Scooby-doobie-do,

You leave many posts and than ask the Moderators to ban them? How about staying away from them? You throw gas on the fire and then cry to the Moderators.

-- Shag (Sha@ggy.....), February 20, 2004.

Insofar as the moderators haven't chosen to intervene, I couldn't bear the thought of leaving flagrant and unprepentent schism (screaming about its own orthodoxy, no less) go unanswered. If I had found those apologetics pages earlier, I wouldn't have written so much.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 20, 2004.

Emerald: I repeat, You don't understand either the doctrine of holy baptism or of Original sin. From your point of view, insane trad, redemption is limited. You deny the All- Knowing and All-Powerful God. You forget the words of Jesus Christ: ''God can raise children to Abraham from the very stones of the road.''

Has it ever occurred to you that you may might be wrong in this regard? --was your reply. I'm not wrong. Thinking in or out of or without the ''box'' is not the point. You may THINK something completely false. Christ died for ALL mankind; and He decides who is saved and who isn't.

The Church has been teaching us this since the beginning. Our faith makes it KNOWN God is not limited in His divine Will. The doctrine can't fail. The fact we are baptised and come to the Church cannot obstruct God when He intervenes to save a repentent soul. That soul will die baptised and in the Church, as God wills. The Prophet said very aptly, ''A humble and contrite heart Thou wilt not spurn.'' That's the Word of God, not thinking inside a box.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2004.

Is this the same matt1618?

While I have to admit that some of the stuff on the above page is pretty funny, one might step back for a moment and ask... whether this approach loyal to the what's found in Pope John Paul II's Ut Unum Sint:

"For this reason, the Council's Decree on Ecumenism also emphasizes the importance of "every effort to eliminate words, judgments, and actions which do not respond to the condition of separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations between them more difficult".

What does it profit a layman to listen to another layman? But don't take my word for it.

Here's another interesting thought from there:

"One of the first steps in ecumenical dialogue is the effort to draw the Christian Communities into this completely interior spiritual space in which Christ, by the power of the Spirit, leads them all, without exception, to examine themselves before the Father and to ask themselves whether they have been faithful to his plan for the Church."

Look upthread. All I did was restate Catholic doctrine. Now it's not my fault that I find myself in a world that's in a state of virtual apostacy, but as a Catholic, if I don't just tell the truth and pray for the salvation of souls, then it will be my fault, and I will have to answer for that.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 20, 2004.

...to clarify, not that matt1618 wrote that piece, but it is on his site. And it's a similar attitude that they all partake in.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 20, 2004.

Gentlemen, we all agree though that salvation is a gift from God...and we all agree that Catholic theology includes both the ordinary economy of salvation (sacraments, Church) and the extraordinary economy of salvation which is God's own miraculous intervention in history (Guadalupe, Fatima, spontaneous conversions, etc).

The debate then is largely academic (though Emerald tries so hard to make it seem as though us acknowledging as fact that God can bring souls to himself by himself apart from water baptism and visible attendance in a parish means we all are exempt from Christ's commands to attend to the ordinary course of things.)

All souls in heaven are saved. All saved souls were baptized - in some fashion, and are members of Christ's Church - in some fashion.

That 0.001% come into God's peace by means known only to God doesn't make the command of Christ to baptize and preach and bring the 99.99% of souls to him through the communion of the Church less essential!

Look at all the persons in heaven who were never baptised with water or members of a parish! Angels, catechumes, the holy prophets and martyrs, the holy innocents.... all non-water-baptized souls are in heaven... because they all believed and or shed blood for Christ.

Emerald thinks Baptism = solely water. Not true and he's ducked the issue of defining his terms. He also refuses to define what "Church" is...what it means to belong to Christ and what is possible to God and what is possible for men.

He confuses the theoretical possibility of baptism of blood/desire and the possibility of special lights of the Spirit to believe the truth about God and so be saved by him alone...with the probability that this happens all the time...

To heck with what obscure german theologians or nutty professors claim... the point is we're talking probability not absolute certainty with respect to the eternal destiny of non-Christians.

It's true that "most likely" non-Christians will go to hell because in their adult choices they choose evil rather than good and given their religions or lack thereof, they either believed errors which led them away from truth, or held beliefs that made virtue nearly impossible. For them we have the urgent need to evangelize and save.

But what of aborted children? What of infants who die? What of retarded or handicapped, the insane or chronically abused? Is God some arbitrary tyrant who says "Oh well, too bad"? Not even in the Old Testament is this type of picture evident.

Emerald, what the heaven is the point of Wisdom or Romans' talk about the law written on men's hearts if there's no salvation outside the visible body and the sacramental or Law system? If someone has 0% chance of doing good and accepting the truth, how can that person reasonably (justly) be held guilty of true sin?

Ah the knots you guys tie yourselves in! ONLY IF THERE'S A CHANCE TO BE SAVED BY GOD'S GRACE COULD NON-CHRISTIANS BE JUSTLY CONDEMNED FOR NOT TAKING IT.

We know baptism (properly defined) is necessary and so is the Church (properly defined). Baptism includes BOTH economies, not just the ordinary, as does the "Church".

We have a positive command of God to preach the Gospel and bring souls into obedience and communion, into the one People of God, into "the Kingdom". But we ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE'S AT WORK!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 20, 2004.

Joe, are you somewhat aquainted with Aristotle's treatment of matter and form?

It's simple, really. We all have heard that every Sacrament has both matter and form. Composite being is principled by these, and while we can isolate and treat each seperately in the abstract, the composite cannot remain in existence if it is found bereft of either one or the other principle. I don't know... use H2O for an imperfect analogy.

There is a baptism of desire which is an element or principle of the One Baptism. We can separate in the abstract, in the mind for consideration, the principle of baptism of desire. The water is the matter. But they all exist in the One Baptism:

Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum.

The best statement I have found reflecting Aristotelian and Thomistic understanding of the inseparability of element within the One Baptism is this one by St. Ambrose of Milan:

"You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in baptism are one: water, blood, and the Spirit (1 John 5:8): And if you withdraw any one of these, the sacrament of baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water, for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’" (The Mysteries 4:20 [A.D. 390])."

Trent makes this clear:

Session 7, Canon 2: If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost," let him be anathema.

That's crystal clear.

People walk up to Trent, though, and take this one:

Session 7, Canon 4: If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.

...and they isolate out of context the bolded part out there and use that as a way around Canon 2, Canon 2 being crystal clear.

Now this is interesting... I was thinking about matter and form, composites and the Sacraments, and checked with a friend of mine who knows his languages well. Go to the original latin on Session 7, Canon 4. It's constructed in the double negative, rendering the underlined "or" you see above to the conjunctive.

In other words, both the Sacrament and the desire are necessary.

Thomistically, this makes complete sense. Now maybe I'm right and maybe I'm wrong. Again, never listen to a layman. But whichever way one turns, it's clear what the rules are concerning Baptism. We must keep them.

Now I didn't make the rules, I just believe them. I believe that Baptism is necessary for salvation, and it's both water and spirit.

If this poses problems with the practical reality that surrounds me, I just shrug my shoulders and keep the Faith. I can't start doubting because someone is screaming at me that I'm damning people to Hell, that I don't love God or understand Jack, or that I'm a heretic or schimatic or a deviant for believing the words of Christ, Trent, and the Church.

Why do I have to understand something that's supposed to be held by Faith? Isn't the latter the gift of God to those who have not the former?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 20, 2004.

Let me try to make it a bit clearer.

I've got Trent telling me not to question the necessity of both water and spirit in Baptism. Attached is an anathema. That's serious business.

One the other hand, I have laymen telling me that the magisterium says that I need to not rule out the proposition of the possibility of a chance that the inclusion of water in Baptism may not necesarily be necessary. The avoidance of this position has no anathema attached to it by the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Now, I've got a choice to make:

1. Be anathemnitized by Trent, or

2. Be anathemitized by laymen.

Let the laymen, then, anathemetize me for holding to Trent.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 20, 2004.

Emerald,

In other words, both the Sacrament and the desire are necessary.

How much desire does a newborn baby have? Are you now saying even BAPTISM is worthless since newborns can't desire it? The trouble is you DON'T understand Jack This by itself isn't a problem. What IS a problem is that you refuse to believe anything other than what you invent for yourself. That IS a problem, we are supposed to follow the Magesterium, not our own cockamamie interpretations of encyclicals we don't understand.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 20, 2004.

Emerald doesn't or will not admit, the sacrament of baptism is NOT dispensed with if it's by desire as God understands it. God cannot be deceived. Just because man can, doesn't mean God is. He sees BAPTISM in the special cases of Desire and Blood baptism. It is correctly called by Christ, (in that instance) being BORN AGAIN. ''Of water and the Spirit'' is the visible sign. But not the only sign, to God. The true question is, always has been: is the soul born again in baptism? Not is the man/woman splashed with water without exception.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2004.

Emerald, unum baptisma doesn't mean what you think it means: it means men don't have to be re-baptized over and over for the remission of sins!

Within the sacrament of baptism, yes, you're right: water, word, and spirit are all required. But that doesn't answer to the point that the grace confered BY GOD to a soul via this outward sign of an inner reality can be given BY GOD to a soul despite the sign - in manner known only to God and not by us (thus making it: extra-ordinary!).

Besides, you just keep ducking (quack quack) the issue of ORDINARY ECONOMY (SACRAMENTS IN THE CHURCH) AND EXTRAORDINARY ECONOMY *God capable of working directly minus the sacramental sign and communio.

Precisely because we can't see this hidden action, neither can we discount it (Yes, 100% sure my pagan friend's child is hell-bound) nor can we act as though God's miracles are normative and cease obeying his commands to evangelize!

Jesus said that he would build HIS CHURCH even while sending out the apostles to "do greater works than these will you do". In my mind this means that us human beings currently at work toiling for the good of the kingdom aren't the only ones at work in the drama of salvation.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 20, 2004.

Emerald, ... The trouble is you DON'T understand Jack.

Huh? I don't get it. Is Emerald's real name "Jack"? Or is there someone named "Jack" whom Emerald doesn't understand? Please explain. Who/what is "Jack"?

-- (Huh?@huh?.huh?), February 20, 2004.

Huh,

When attempting to communicate with someone, it's best to use a vernacular they are familiar with. Sort of like saying "when in Rome do as the Romans do". I was attempting to use "Jack" in the same manner as Emerald did, to try and increase communication effectiveness.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 20, 2004.

Eugene says:

"Emerald doesn't or will not admit, the sacrament of baptism is NOT dispensed with if it's by desire as God understands it. God cannot be deceived. Just because man can, doesn't mean God is. He sees BAPTISM in the special cases of Desire and Blood baptism. It is correctly called by Christ, (in that instance) being BORN AGAIN. ''Of water and the Spirit'' is the visible sign. But not the only sign, to God. The true question is, always has been: is the soul born again in baptism? Not is the man/woman splashed with water without exception."

If you don't mind my asking, how do you know this? Because Frank says this to me:

"What IS a problem is that you refuse to believe anything other than what you invent for yourself. That IS a problem, we are supposed to follow the Magesterium, not our own cockamamie interpretations of encyclicals we don't understand."

...so naturally I wonder, where does Eugene come up with that, that's not something of similar origin as what Frank says I'm doing? Again, all I'm doing is saying that Baptism is necessary for salvation, and then put up a Canon from Trent about the necessity of water. Why is your understanding any better, in substance or source? It's a valid question.

Joe says:

"Emerald, unum baptisma doesn't mean what you think it means: it means men don't have to be re-baptized over and over for the remission of sins!"

Yes, but I'm sure that's not all it means.

"Within the sacrament of baptism, yes, you're right: water, word, and spirit are all required. But that doesn't answer to the point that the grace confered BY GOD to a soul via this outward sign of an inner reality can be given BY GOD to a soul despite the sign - in manner known only to God and not by us (thus making it: extra- ordinary!)."

I've been saying something similar all along (not in this thread), but nobody takes note of the distinction. We were told that water was a necessary part of the Sacrament of Baptism. Listen hard, here ok? lol!!! Listen to this:

It's one thing to say that God can accomplish wonders beyond our sight and our knowing. Right? Right. Agreed here. O.k., but we know de fide that water is necessary in the Baptism. Agreed? Agreed! Ok.

What I'm saying, and have always said, is that such provision of that kind of full baptism, in all it's elements including the matter (water) may happen in ways beyond our seeing and knowing. This is the way in which I would be able to say, yeah everybody, we are on common ground. I would add further, though, that if someone has the desire and justification, then God will carve the ways and means to make provision for the Baptism. God alone is the author of life and only God alone can allow for it's snuffing out.

BUT, if someone is telling me that there speculative way to dispense with what Christ, the Church and Trent have stated regarding the necessity of the matter of the Sacrament of Baptism, then I must forego that speculation as being contra fide.

It's that way with all the conclusions drawn from the principles of the Divine Science, theology, that if your conclusion contradicts or calls into question the principles of Faith themselves, then the conclusion must be dispensed with. You know this from studying the Summa Theologica.

"Besides, you just keep ducking (quack quack) the issue of ORDINARY ECONOMY (SACRAMENTS IN THE CHURCH) AND EXTRAORDINARY ECONOMY *God capable of working directly minus the sacramental sign and communio."

See above. I just didn't do that.

"Precisely because we can't see this hidden action, neither can we discount it..."

See above again. But right now, I've got to go get the new baby baptised tonight. =)

You do see the distinction, right Joe?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 20, 2004.

"Session 7, Canon 2: If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost," let him be anathema. "

Important hermeneutical tool: when understanding an answer, one must know what the question was. It seems to me that this was never meant to exclude the traditional understandings of baptism by blood/baptism of desire. It looks more like it's condemning the well- known Protestant tendency of iconoclasm, i.e., saying that the water in baptism is merely symbolic, or thinking that water baptism is superstitious, or denying the necessity of baptism altogether.

The important factor is that baptism by blood/desire doesn't turn Jesus' words into a metaphor. This can be easily demonstrated by a parallel case: "Unless you eat this bread and drink this cup you shall not have life within you."

Emerald, you know that it is, of course, Anathema to say that Communion under both species is necessary for Salvation. Does that mean that Jesus was wrong? No. It only means that Christ's teachings cannot be read like a VCR manual.

In the same way "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...," while true, is not the kind of abstract logical proposition whence we can absolutely deduce, "Therefore, absolutely no man lacking water can enter the Kingdom."

If you insist that it must be read that way, then you have a problem on your hands, because then drinking the cup, too, is absolutely necessary. The only way Trent and Christ are compatible in this case is if exceptions are allowed in both, i.e., Communion under one species, and Baptism of desire.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 20, 2004.

"Besides, you just keep ducking (quack quack) the issue of ORDINARY ECONOMY (SACRAMENTS IN THE CHURCH) AND EXTRAORDINARY ECONOMY *God capable of working directly minus the sacramental sign and communio."

Hold on: the * part, bolded, no... because that contradicts what is de fide. But God working in an extraordinary manner? Sure, why not. But we cannot speculate that which contradicts the Faith or casts it into doubt.

Extraordinary, with.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 20, 2004.

Emerald,

You know very well that we charge you with perverting Catholic doctrine--not merely restating it. Your claims to "just repeating it" are disingenuous at best, especially when in the same breath you defend Feeney, who most certainly did not merely repeat doctrine.

re: matt1618--Perhaps he has transgressed charity and prudence in writing some of that stuff in that way. But that's certainly no argument in your favor. Frankly, without respect to his ecumnicism, if his arguments are true, you are in deep spiritual doo, and need an examination of conscience for your sins against faith.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 20, 2004.

Mmmm... Thomism.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 20, 2004.

"How much desire does a newborn baby have? Are you now saying even BAPTISM is worthless since newborns can't desire it?"

Our Lord said he who believes and is baptized will be saved. We were always taught the Church provides the Faith for the infants when they are baptized.

God bless,
FGC

-- FGC (FGCC4@yahoo.com), February 20, 2004.

The Holy Spirit infuses faith into a baby's soul at baptism. His/her godparents sponsor and speak for the baby, together with the minister they act for Christ's Holy Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2004.

"You know very well that we charge you with perverting Catholic doctrine--not merely restating it."

You who? On what authority do you do this? Anon, this is the sort of thing that theologians have discussed and even heatedly debated for 2,000 years in the Church.

These things are well within the arena of things that can be discussed freely so long as an article of Faith has not been compromised.

I have not compromised ANY article of Faith whatsoever here.

I've read all these things you mention, and none of them are new to me, including that proof of Thomas'. You call the proof above Thomism; that's not Thomism... it's one of his proofs.

The very way it is laid out shows his Thomistic method, which is to take the principles of theology, i.e., that which is in the Deposit of the Faith, and apply human reason to them; hence "The Objection", the "On the Contrary", and the replies to the objections you see in the proff. This means the conclusions are subject to error. Not too much with Thomas because, well, he's St. Thomas, doctor of the Church... but certainly still possible, as he even states himself. That's what theology is; you should know this. Theology is the Divine Science of taking the principles of Faith and applying reason to draw further conclusions. I was schooled in this stuff.

It was Thomas who denied the Immaculate Conception; not really denied it exactly, but at the time that were viewing conception and ensoulment as two distinct occurances, and so was he, therefore making the Immaculate Conception an unnecessarily fuzzy instance in their way of thinking. The issue of the Immaculate Conception was hotly debated at the time as to whether it was part of the Deposit, but The Eastern Churches, however, always held the doctrine fast.

So what do we say of Thomas? Heretic because of his take on the Immaculate Concept, or perhaps Baptism? Of course not. See, what you are doing, anon, is trying to take a completely, 100% legitimate theological conversation and making a Sanhedrin out of it.

In fact, there are remarkable similarities between the case of the debate over the Immaculate Conception in Thomas' time, before it was defined infallibly from the Chair, and the debate over certain details concerning Baptism.

Personally, I would rather have an interesting discussion about it with someone who had a theological interest in the matter than with someone who is only trying to win a court case.

I have denied no doctrines, am guilty of no heresy, and guilty of no schism.

1. There is no salvation outside the Church, and

2. Baptism is necessary for salvation.

The new baby is now Baptised and is at this time incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ. I renounced Satan (again), and promised to raise him in the Catholic Faith, and I'm going to do exactly that.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 20, 2004.

The upshot, anon, is this:

It is perfectly theologically tenable, and not at all in conflict with the Church's definitive statements of doctrine, to hold the position I hold, that of holding these doctrines as they are and without further doodoo adoo. As I stated before, it is unassailable; it is a position based on Faith in the principles of the Faith. It lies at the core and the essence of what Faith is.

I, as a Catholic, am well within the bounds of safety in holding and restating Catholic doctrine.

If not, then theology itself is anathema.

The thing I hold is a defined doctrine of the Faith; the thing you want me to hold is not a defined doctrine of the Faith, and is not found in the Deposit of the Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 21, 2004.

Gabriel Benedict, what do you ask of the Church of God?

Godparent: Faith.

Priest: What does Faith offer you?

Godparent: Life everlasting.

Priest: If then you desire to enter into life, keep the commandments. ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.'

the priest blows gently into the baby's face, and says:

Go forth from her, unclean spirit, and give place to the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete.

the priest traces the sign of the Cross on the baby's forehead and breast, saying:

Receive the sign of the Cross upon your forehead and upon your heart. Know that you are bound now by a heavenly rule of life, and let your conduct henceforth prove you fit to be a living temple of God. Let us pray.Hear our prayer, Lord God, and guard this Thy chosen servant Gabriel Benedict. May thy strength never fail him now, for we have traced upon him the sign of Christ's cross. May he always remember what he learns of Thy greatness, and Thy glory. May he keep Thy commandments and be worthy, he too, to have glory , the glory of new life in Thee. Through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

Let us pray.Almighty, everlasting God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, look upon this thy servant Gabriel Benedict, whom Thou hast called to the first lessons of the Faith. Drive out of him all blindness of heart; break the bonds of Satan which have bound him. Open to him, O Lord, the door of Thy mercy. Steeped in this symbol of Thy wisdom, may he no longer be tainted with evil desires, but rather spread about him the fragrance of thy commandments, as he serves Thee happily in Thy Church and grow holier with each passing day. Through the same Christ our Lord.

Amen.

(Then the priest blesses the salt.)

I adjure thee in the name of God the Father almighty, in the love of Jesus Christ our Lord, in the power of the Holy Ghost. I adjure thee through the living true and holy God, the God who made thee for the well-being of the human race, and commanded thee to be hallowed by his servants for the use of those who come to the knowledge of her by faith. In the name of the Holy Trinity, through thee may Satan be put to flight. Wherefore, O lord our God, we beseech thee, + sanctify this salt and + bless it; and make of it a + sovereign remedy to linger within the inmost being of all who partake of it. In the name of that same Lord Jesus Christ, who is to come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire.

Amen.

Gabriel Benedict, receive this salt, learning from it how to relish what is right and good. May it make your way easy to eternal life.

Amen.

Let us pray. God of our fathers, O God with Whom all truth begins, look upon Thy servant Gabriel Benedict who now has tasted salt as his first spiritual food. Do not leave him hungry. Give to his soul food in abundance, that he may be eager, hopeful and lighthearted in the service of Thy Name. Lead him we pray thee, to the waters of new Life, that, with all who are faithful to Thee, he may merit the eternal rewards Thou hast promised. Through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

I adjure thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to depart and remain far away from this servant of God, Gabriel Benedict. He commands thee now who walked dry- shod upon the waters, and when Peter would have perished in the sea stretched out to him his saving hand. And so, accursed spirit, give heed to the sentence passed upon thee. Give honour to the living and true God, give honour to Jesus Christ His Son, and to the Holy Ghost; for God in His goodness has called him to His holy grace and blessing and to the waters of baptism.

The priest traces the sign of the Cross on the baby's forehead, saying:

And this sign of the holy Cross, which we put upon his forehead, do thou, foul spirit, never dare to violate. Through the same Christ our Lord.

Amen.

Let us pray. Holy Lord and Father, almighty and eternal God, author of light and of truth, we ask thy never-failing and kind fatherly love for this thy servant Gabriel Benedict. Enlighten him in Thy goodness with the light of Thy own understanding. Cleanse him and sanctify him, give him true knowledge; that made worthy by the grace of Baptism, he may be endowed with unwavering hope, sound judgement and a firm grasp of holy doctrine. Through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

The priest places part of his stole on the baby, and leads him and his godparents into the church.

Gabriel Benedict, come into the temple of God, that your lot may be with Christ in life eternal.

Amen.

The priest then says the Apostle's Creed and the Our Father, aloud, together with the godparents, continuing:

I adjure you, each and every unclean spirit, in the name of God the Father almighty, in the name of Jesus Christ his Son, our Lord and our Judge, and by the power of the Holy Ghost, to be gone from this image of God Gabriel Benedict, whom our Lord in His goodness has called to be his holy temple that he himself may become a temple of the living God, and the Holy Ghost may dwell in him. Through the same Christ our Lord, who will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire.

Amen.

The priest moistens his thumb with saliva and, touching the baby's ears and nostrils, says:

Ephpheta, which is: Be thou open to the sweet fragrance about you. As for thee, evil spirit, get thee gone; for God's judgement is upon thee. Gabriel Benedict, do you renounce Satan?

Godparent: I do renounce him.

Priest: And all his works?

Godparent: I do renounce them.

Priest: And all his pomps?

Godparent: I do renounce them.

The priest then anoints the baby on the chest and back with the oil of catechumens, saying:

I anoint you with this saving oil in Christ Jesus our Lord, that you may have eternal life.

Amen.

The priest then takes off his purple stole, and puts on a white one, and leads the baby and his godparents to the baptistry.

Gabriel Benedict, do you believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth?

Godparent: I do believe.

Priest: Do you believe in Jesus Christ, His only son, our Lord, who was born into this world and Who suffered for us?

Godparent: I do believe.

Priest: Do you believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting?

Godparent: I do believe.

Priest: Gabriel Benedict, are you willing to be baptised?

Godparent: I am.

While the godparent holds the baby, the priest pours water over the baby's head three times in the form of a cross, saying:

Gabriel Benedict, I baptise thee in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

The priest anoints the top of the baby's head with the oil of chrism, saying:

May Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has given you new life through water and the Holy Ghost, and forgiven you all your sins (here he anoints the child) himself anoint you with saving Chrism in the same Jesus Christ our Lord, that you may have eternal life.

Amen.

Placing his stole (or a white linen cloth) ocer the baby, the priest says:

Take this white garment, and see that you carry it without stain before the judgement seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you may have eternal life.

The priest gives a lighted candle to one of the godparents, saying;

Take this burning light and keep true to your baptism throughout a blameless life. Keep the commandments of God; that when the Lord shall come like a bridegroom to his marriage feast you, in company with all the Saints, may meet him in the heavenly courts, and there live for ever.

Amen.

Go in peace, Gabriel Benedict, and the Lord be with you.

Amen.

-- jake (j@k.e), February 21, 2004.

Emerald:
Why, during the length of this thread have we been discussing YOU? Are you RELIGION? Are you so important we must stray from arguing the aspects around our SALVATION itself, to the subject of your faith? Is yours the only faith on earth, Emerald?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2004.

The Roman Catholic Faith is the only Faith in the face of the earth, and the only one anyone can claim any right to practice.

There is no such thing as a right to practice a false religion.

-- jake (j@k.e), February 21, 2004.

Emerald, it FINALLY came out of you > doodoo > hardly a Freudian slip.

-- aaron (aarongeorgescu@yahoo.com), February 21, 2004.

Emerald,

"the thing you want me to hold is not a defined doctrine of the Faith, and is not found in the Deposit of the Faith."

Are you saying that only infallible doctrines demand assent? That's a pretty big heresy right there. Goes even beyon schizm.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 21, 2004.

(1) Emerald, you should read this and this. Both come from a (rather hatefully) sedevecantist Website, and nevertheless show beyond any doubt that Feeney's position is both schizmatic and his excommunication valid.

(2) It seems to me that Trent has pretty well preserved Thomas' understanding of Baptism.

Note that if we take Thomas' proof, I have to amend something I said earlier, which is that baptism by blood/desire is sacramental. Thomas said rather explicitly that they are not, but only by their effects are they called 'Baptism'. This is necessary in order to maintain the "unity of the sacrament."

But anyway, the Catechism of Trent is the best way to get into the minds of the Council Fathers. Section on Baptism.

I would be dishonest if I didn't point out a section which clearly demonstrates the Fathers' emphasis on the necessity of Baptism:

"...unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

However, I certainly hope that trads will reward my honesty by also acknowledging that the same document explicitly grants the efficacy of desire for catechumens:

"...should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

Further, Session 7 Canon 4 is not the only canon affirming the efficacy of desire. Emerald neglects Session 6:

"Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4 - In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as b eing a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or [not "and," but "or"] its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

While I think it is sufficiently proved now that Trent most certainly affirms the efficacy of Baptism through authentic desire, I have never seen anything in Trent which suggests that this desire can be implicit, i.e., subject to invincible ignorance. Unless I am mistaken, the entry of the already existent concept of 'invincible ignorance' into the official teaching of the Catholic Church may have been an actual development.

However, it can be shown that this development is legitimate and does not infringe the authority of Trent.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 21, 2004.

"...should any unforeseen accident make it impossible..."

Two comments:
God is Omniscient and Catechisms are not infallible.

Pax,
FGC

-- FGC (FGCC@yahoo.com), February 21, 2004.

Emerald,

Remember you said that the Epistle from the Holy Office never mentioned Feeney? Turns out the link you gave us was doctored.

Here is the full text.

FGC: a few more comments. (1) Your required assent is not limited to infallible doctrines. (2) You cannot give your assent to a different interpretation of doctrines than the Church's own. (3) The Catechism of Trent is the authentic interpretation of the Council of Trent. (4) If you consider the Catechism of Trent in error, you consider the Council itself to be in error. (5) "unforeseen" is referring to US PEOPLE, you goofball, not to God!

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 21, 2004.

Emerald,

Add "goofball" to the list.

Anon,

Which of my two statements is untrue?

Pax,
FGC

-- FGC (FGCC4@yahoo.com), February 21, 2004.

Your first statement is true but irrelevant. That God foresees what men do not--namely, that a Catechumen will die before he receives the sacrament--is irrelevant to the matter of his desire being efficacious, and certainly has no bearing on the Council of Trent and its Catechism's affirmation of the efficacy of the desire for baptism.

Your second statement is very ambiguous. If, by it, you mean that no catechism has ever been written in which an Ex Cathedra teaching was Defined (i.e., stated for the first time), it is true. If, by it, you mean that a catechism does not contain only infallible teaching, it is true. If, by it, you mean that a catechism does not by definition contain infallible teaching, it is true but misleading. If, by it, you mean that a catechism contains no infallible teaching, you are false, because all catechisms have contained much infallible teaching within them. If, by it, you mean that a catechism does not reliably reveal and elucidate the true content of infallible teaching, it is false. If, by it, you mean that assent to a catechism is optional based upon private interpretation of infallible teaching, it is a heinous error and a grave danger to all Catholics.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 21, 2004.

'goofball'--you're not the first I've called that. Probably one of the nastiest insults I use, unless you count schismatic, but that's Canon Law, not me.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 21, 2004.

Anon:

"Emerald, [you said:] "the thing you want me to hold is not a defined doctrine of the Faith, and is not found in the Deposit of the Faith." Are you saying that only infallible doctrines demand assent?"

No. Nor have I ever thought that. I know that you might like to think I think that, but I don't, and never did.

"That's a pretty big heresy right there. Goes even beyon schizm."

It's a good thing it isn't true then. Let me direct your attention to the underlined portion... there's an assumed premiss there, and it is this:

...that what you would like me to believe that there are certain theological speculations surrounding the doctrine of the necessity of Baptism, which speculations are doctrines in and of themselves. But they aren't doctrines. Or, while you might even admit that they are not doctrines, that I must lend my assent to the speculations; neither is this the case. What is the case is that the integrity of all doctrines must be preserved in the course of the exercise of the science of theology. It is a science, you know; St. Thomas calls it that.

"(1) Emerald, you should read this and this. Both come from a (rather hatefully) sedevecantist Website, and nevertheless show beyond any doubt that Feeney's position is both schizmatic and his excommunication valid."

I've probably read a lot of what you might be able to find, anon, and nothing shows beyond a shadow of a doubt anything of the sort. What is beyond a shadow of a doubt? I'd tell you, but you alread know: Catholic doctrine. The principles of the Catholic Faith are beyond a shadow of a doubt. In this discussion of issues surrounding the doctrine of the necessity of Baptism, you are in the territory not of doctrine, but of theology, and theological speculation.

I want to make sure we are on the same page regarding exactly what theology is, because I'm using words such as theology, doctrine, and Deposit of the Faith, philosophy and speculation from the standpoint of Thomism here. You asked upthread:

"Do you know what an equivocation is? It is claiming something is true based upon the confounding of two possible meanings of the same word."

Of course I do; the same place St. Thomas got it, and it's one of the first things I studied in college when we approached Aristotle's O rganon, in Catego ries, along with 'univocation' and also naming of things 'derivatively'; it's in the very first paragraph of the whole work.

I'm beginning to wonder if there's not quite a bit of equivocation going on here in the use of the terms theology, doctrine, teaching, belief, Faith, and the like. It's going to hurt to hear this, but I am in fact approaching this Thomistically, and meaning by "Theology" what St. Thomas meant.

"(2) It seems to me that Trent has pretty well preserved Thomas' understanding of Baptism."

That's debatable, but it is is in fact the product of theology according to Thomas' own understanding, but NOT doctrine. Again, the very fact that it is a conclusion drawn from a classically arranged Thomistic proof is evidence that is a product of the theological effort and not itself derived from one of the principles of faith assumed by the theological effort itself. Thomas himself would admit this; it's the very basis of his work.

The proper hierarchical order, also, would not be to ask whether Trent preserved Thomas' understanding, but whether Thomas preserved Trent's understanding. Realize that I understand the anachronism present here on the timeline, but you understand the point, which is about what, or who, has priority in principle.

"Note that if we take Thomas' proof, I have to amend something I said earlier, which is that baptism by blood/desire is sacramental. Thomas said rather explicitly that they are not, but only by their effects are they called 'Baptism'. This is necessary in order to maintain the "unity of the sacrament.""

I'm glad you took note of this; this is no small matter. Hopefully at this point you will begin to recognize that this discussion is a matter of theological speculation, and not at all a clear point of doctrine as it is commonly and incorrectly billed as. It's a really interesting consideration, and theologians opine this way and reason that way, but a doctrine it most certainly is not.

What is doctrinal here, and what actually is required of every believer to believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt?

2. ...that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 21, 2004.

May I request, if possible anon, that the assumption that I am a dark force hellbent on the destruction of souls and of the Catholic Faith, be dropped in favor of a constructive discussion of things theological.

I'm wondering if you might have any idea what it feels like sometimes, to love your Catholic Faith, but to have people assume the worst of you and accuse you of things that are not at all true.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 21, 2004.

Emerald: Go away and pray once more for the gift of humility. You did it before, and you need it again. Save something for next week. Thanks.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2004.

"Emerald: Go away and pray once more for the gift of humility. You did it before, and you need it again. Save something for next week. Thanks."

Today's option of the day: Option #3.

3. Portray the person who tenaciously holds the above doctrines to be an Elitist.

Your opinion has been duly noted. Is there anything else you would like to contribute to this conversation, Gene?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 21, 2004.

I'll suggest covering your light under a bushel for a few days, that others might recover their eyesight. You sure make a brilliant impression; you did it 80 posts ago, and keep flashing it in our poor eyes. Yes, we saw: Baptism, must receive one per soul, to be saved, et No salvation outside the Catholic Church. No one ever disagreed on doctrine. --Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2004.

What follows is a list of errors Emerald perpetuates, and their responses.

Emerald writes...	Response
"...of the theological speculations and theories about the subsistence of other religions in the Catholic Church as being sufficient for salvation have ever been formally pronounced as doctrine."	For some reason Emerald thinks orthodox Catholics (obedient to the teaching of Vatican II) have some idea about "subsistence of other religions... etc.," which is ridiculous. He also confounds the defining of Ex Cathedra infallible dogmas with "formally pronounced as doctrine" (see below) in order to excuse himself from official Church teaching.
"Was the statement that there is no salvation outside the Church a defined doctrine, declared as binding from the chair of Peter? Yes."	Emerald tells us that the infallibility of this doctrine begins and ends with those words; this is a pretense to deny his duty of assent to teaching by the same Church--even within the same Council. He would pretend to smash Church teaching with Church teaching.
"Now that someone has brought [Fr. Feeney] up, was his position condemned by the Church? No." [...followed by post after post: Feeney's doctrines never condemned, Feeney never excommunicated, all political, etc. Most interesting line: "I didn't see anybody excommunicate these beliefs, as if that were possible. Go grab the 1949 letter from the Holy Office and I'll show you what is actually there and what isn't." And again, "Feeney is mentioned nowhere in the document;"--with a link to a doctored document, of which this is the full letter.]	The doctored version of this letter offered by Emerald, found on another Trad site, omitted a substantial portion of the original. It did not even, as other Trad-doctored versions of the letter do, include the note "(Practical protocol regarding Fr. Feeney)," indicating an omission. If this is not Emerald's deception, it is certainly that of his sources However, the full letter is available in at least two locations on the Web: EWTN and matt1618's Apologetics Page. Further, the doctored letter with the note of omission is available on several Trad sites. I am very surprised that, of all of the texts of this letter available on the Web, Emerald presented us with the only doctored version of the letter that was not obviously so. This is especially considering he told me the following: "I've probably read a lot of what you might be able to find, anon." At this point I am not inclined to trust that Emerald was "invincibly ignorant" of the deceptive nature of the document he linked us to. The omitted text can be found at the end of this post. Here are the highlights: "those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without." "one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences." "Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church." Was Feeney excommunicated? Yes. For his doctrine? Yes. And all who follow and defend his doctrine, are they in schism? Yes.
"Are any new understandings of this doctrine been defined infallibly from the supreme magisterium of the Church? No."	Elsewhere Emerald denies that only infallible doctrine demands his assent, but this is simply incompatible with the rest of his writings. Emerald flouts common sense, denying that the pertinent doctrine is doctrine at all, calling it "theological speculation." See below.
"1. That there is no salvation outside the Church. 2. That Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now I stubbornly cling to these two beliefs... the position is unassailable..." [Elsewhere frequently speaks of people trying to "get me to deny the above Catholic doctrines of the Faith."	Emerald's frequent appeals to sympathy and 'orthodoxy' are misguided and dangerous. Emerald believes that holding fast to all of the teachings of the Church, including those of Pius IX, XII, and John Paul II, constitutes in itself "denying doctrines of faith." This is strange, because those same Popes frequently reaffirmed the very same doctrines that he claims to, proving that the 'contradiction' Emerald perceives is a chimera. Nevertheless, from Emerald's words it follows that he believes that numerous Popes have denied doctrines of faith in their official teaching. And yet Emerald frequently denies being a sedevacantist. See * below.
"6. Far out and the best approach, though, has to be this: to say "but I DO believe those doctrines, but..." and then proceed to explain how you mostly believe them, however not in exactly the same way... It's improved." ...That's basic modernism."	Emerald insults Catholics by suggesting that they only partially affirm certain dogmas and are plagued by Modernism. The irony is gutwrenching, considering that Emerald rejects several whole doctrines based on his private judgement. Fundamentalism comes full circle and becomes modernism. (See * below). What Emerald maybe does not know is that there is doctrinal development of a kind completely different than modernism as defined in Pa scendi Dominici Gregis. This is the development elucidated by Cardinal Henry Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, in the preparation of which Newman converted to Catholicism upon having thereupon exposed to the world its true apostolicity. Newman, nor his works have ever been condemned; he was created a Cardinal and was close to the Pope. His essay is not modernist and the belief in development is quite traditional. What is not Traditional is Emerald's dissent, dishonesty, and open rebellion against the Magisterium of the Church and the terrorism of her followers. He needs to be banned.
"There are levels of understanding of doctrine, sure, BUT the understanding begins and ends with acceptance of doctrine by faith, not by comprehension by the human intellect. This acceptance or rejection of doctrine is a yes/no, on/off, black/white act of the human Will."	Actually, Newman wrote something quite similar. But there is a difference. Newman granted the Church the right to define the content of her own dogmas. Not you.
"If he is saying this isn't true: 'that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved' ...then it necessarily follows that one need not be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved. But this conclusion is contrary to Catholic doctrine expressed in so many different ages and place in the history of the Church, and again here in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors..."	One of the very strange things Emerald thinks he can do-- like the man who decided to test his superpowers by standing on a train track, is quote Pope after Pope to support his position, all of whom who nevertheless would certainly have held Emerald himself to be extra ecclesiam. Pius IX WROTE Quanto Conficiamur Moerore; he cited it when he wrote the Errors, and he wrote two other documents besides reaffirming his teaching. Pius XII, who Emerald quotes as affirming the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ, approved the Letter of the Holy Office to the Bishop of Boston. Does Emerald care? No. See * below.
"When somebody wants me to deny these things and I refuse to, I'm being disloyal to the Catholic Faith? Me?"	See: "The last paragraph..." below
"Banned for holding two doctrines. Wow."	See: "What exactly was Fr. Feeney's interpretation?"
"It [Letter to the Bishop of Boston] then enters into a discussion of theological speculations about about invincible ignorance, none of which has been defined by the Church."	Here we see Emerald's false relegation of authentic doctrine (taught in a Papal Encyclical, no less) to "theological speculation." At this point, there is no stopping anything not ex-cathedra from earning the phrase "theological speculation." Emerald has no respect for Encyclicals, since he flippantly disregards most of John Paul's Redemptoris Missio and Pius IX's "Quanto Conficiamur Moerore." Emerald's dissent from the teaching of Encyclical letters was condemned by Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani Generis: "20. Nor must it 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";[3] 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 Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." Hence, in the very act of persisting in his defense of Feeney and rejection of Pius IX's authority as expressed in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Emerald is in open rebellion against the Church and is practicing intellectual terrorism in this forum.
"That last paragraph [in the Letter to the Bishop of Boston, saying, "let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church"] isn't applicable to me at all.	That is hardly plausible, even from a very loose reading of the doctored text, since it references quite clearly the umistakable doctrine taught by Pius IX and Pius XII, and implicates all who do not "understand this doctrine as the Church herself does." But this is breathtakingly clear from the complete letter, which states, without a doubt, that: Fr. Feeney's teachings are "far from... the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church" and "very harmful both to those within the Church and those without." Entities perpetuating Feeney's doctrines "exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences." By defending Feeney's doctrines as a valid understanding of Catholic doctrine, Emerald has "serious violations of his duties" as "an ordinary member of the Church" and hence "incur[s] grave sanctions." Emerald is in "grave peril" and "ranged against the Church."
"What exactly was Feeney's interpretation? Is an interpretation even taking place? Doctrines are doctrines."	Here is Feeney's 'interpretaion', in which he explicitly attacks the teaching of Pius IX and "reinterprets" St. Ambrose. Emerald's insistence that his understanding of doctrine is 'uninterpreted' is simply false, and this is obvious by anyone here from the light of reason. Remember Aquinas (of whom Emerald delights in his method but not what he taught, which was never condemned by any Church authority): "Knowledge is received according to the mode of the receiver."
"Traditional Catholicism has not been excommunicated by the Pope"	Here Emerald is being a poet. For Lefebvre and Feeney's extraneous doctrines have indeed been condemned and their persons excommunicated. Yet the punchline comes when a poor apologist replies, "yes it has," to which Emerald would certainly reply, "Well then let's all become Jewish." Maybe in Emerald's mind there is no distinction between "Traditional Catholicism" as either the Catholic Church as a whole, with all of her authority and bishops and Popes and Ecumenical Councils in places, and his sectarian ideology. Maybe he is perfectly honest with himself. See * below.
"I can't think of one way in which I have disobeyed this Pope [Pope Pius IX]. Not one.	See above, and * below.

The above took a lot of work, so I hope that it is appreciated.

* - C.S. Lewis wrote of Jesus Christ, against modernists who liked to think of him as a "favorite philosopher," that Christ was either mad, bad, or God. From this thread, so far as I can see, the same can and must be said about Emerald. Totally impervious to reason, invincible to the Church's calls to loyalty, above and beyond all bishops, saints, doctors, ecumenical councils, and encyclicals, Emerald floats through the forums like a noxious belch, which no fan can blow away and no disinfectant can make less offensive. Posing as a Feeney apologist, headed for the annals of St. Athanasius himself, Emerald poisons the Pope's wine while giving him a kiss.

Maybe he is mad. Maybe he actually believes that God had nothing to do with anything "liberal" (whatever that means) ever written, whether by Pius IX, the Council of Trent Sessions 6 and 7 or its Catechism, Aquinas or Augustine, etc. Maybe Emerald thinks Pius IX was mad, for his inability, in perfect conscience and easy breathing, to see any contradition between "No salvation outside..." and invincible ignorance.

Maybe Emerald is bad. Maybe Emerald hates God and wants to drag lots of people away from salvation; maybe his mind is so clotted with pride that he is blind to his internal contradictions, his mental tangles, his web of lies that he tells himself and believes. Maybe Emerald has a mental disorder, banging on the "Extra Ecclesiam" button with the frenetic fervor of a monkey on a Prozac I.V.

Or maybe Emerald is God. In which case I am most certainly doomed to die for my apostasy, my idolatry to that false God who said he would give us "priests for his people." Oh, Emerald, forgive me my transgressions, and do not condemnd me, because I have not been baptized in your holy pseudonym.

To his credit, Emerald has written one thing in this thread that shines with the gold of truth and reason: "Should anyone listen to me? No." But perhaps he would do well to listen to himself. If he sought mental consistency, he would discover his latent sedevacantism. It's there, most definitely. But it might never show itself. One thing that I've learned is that Sedevacantists are more Catholic than Emerald's brand of traditionalist. That is because the Sedevacantists at least believe in reason. They are internally consistent, if obscenely mistaken about some things. When they think a Pope teaches error, they say, "to heck with the Pope." Sede's leave the Church--no butt kissing, no lip service, no quoting a Pope one second and defying him the next. Sede's know who they are. Emerald is both a mysologist--a hater of reason--and a dangerous imposter. He likes to get friendly, he likes to complain that people are unfair to him. "Don't be too hard on Emerald. He just had a baby." Well, congratulations on bringing life into the world Emerald. Now stop stealing souls from the nursery of the Lord.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 22, 2004.

I said way up at the top, I said... let me try and make this simple.

So let me ask you, then, Anon:

1. Can a soul be saved outside the Church?

2. Can salvation ever be attained without Baptism?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 23, 2004.

1. No. I must say (with the Church) also that, while not members of the Church, those who are not Catholics may be connected to her by perfect Grace, such that it would be incorrect to call them "outside" the Church--since there is no Grace that does not come from God through the Church. The Church since Augustine has recognized a plurality of ways of being 'inside the Church', hence Pius IX's condmnation of the error, that one can be saved who is "in no way" in the Church.

2. No. That this Baptism may come in a way not strictly sacramental-- by genuine desire (the kind only recognizable by God) , or by blood, is the constant teaching of the Church.

This is not my understanding, but the Church's.

Emerald, do you accuse me of your stupid "#6"? Then you accuse the Church, you sedevacantist. Get out of our forum.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 23, 2004.

Actually, I take back the last post. I even regret having tried to answer the questions at their face value. When Emerald asks the questions he is telling a lie. It is a fallacy of the loaded question.

Can a soul be saved outside the Church? Can salvation ever be attained without baptism? It does not matter how I answer these questions, when they come from Emerald. I could say 'yes', or 'no', or "donkey guts and oranges in the blue of ladders smoking BMWs." Because Emerald's questions are not, properly speaking, questions--they contain a whole book of hatred for the Church.

"Can a soul be saved outside the Church?" [Because if you say you believe the Church, you obviously say 'yes', which is a heresy, which means that the Church is in heresy, nevermind whether any Pope saw no contradiction, and if I'm in the Church, that means that Pius IX et. al are outside of it, and it should be obvious to anyone that the Magisterium is not truthworthy and Fr. Feeney was right and everybody else is in error.]

The best answer to Emerald's questions is a lot more simple than I put it. But they require the assistance of a third question.

1. Can a soul be saved outside the Church? No.

2. Can salvation ever be attained without baptism? No.

3. Can one hold these to be true in a manner different from the complete body of ordinary teaching of the Magisterium, before and after their definition? No.

And a bonus,

4. When one does so, even if they deny it, are they in schism, that is, outside the Church, knowing that it was establish by Christ for their salvation, thereby placing their souls in grave risk of perdition? Yes.

"...let me try and make this simple..." - Yet simplicity of faith does not consist in stripping dogma of its elaborate details, of denying and denouncing ambivalence, of holding half-doctrines. This indeed makes them into "half truths and lies". Here is simplicity of faith: love and obey and have faith in the Church, in whole and not in part.

Don't you get it, Emerald? The game is up. The lies are exposed. Your constant deceptions are laid bare. You can protest that I'm being unfair, but just read my long tabled post above. It's not hard to see. Tables have been supported ever since Netscape 2.0.

But Emerald is a mysologist, a hater of reason. I do not like to announce that I pray for this or that person, because such announcements can be taken the wrong way, and should never be used as insults. Besides, there is noone who I do not pray for. I love Emerald in obedience to God but I see that he is victim to a viscious, circular pattern of thought, that is a grave danger to himself and others.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 23, 2004.

Take a step back, anon, and really attempt to understand what this conversation is about. It's a valid theological discussion. I'll try my absolute best here:

We have it from the Savior, and the Church, that "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." You and I agree on this and with the Church. The Church, we also agree, has always honored and upheld the necessity of this sacrament of Baptism. You and I agree with the Church. We hold the doctrine in loyal to the Faith.

But there is a normal, natural and common question or concern people always have: what about those who don't know this, or those for whom it seems impossible to receive this sacrament? Not a silly question, not a doubting of the Faith, just a normal, natural question.

Alright, now we're going to try to answer this question as best we can:

"What happens to people who don't know about baptism, or for whom there seems an un-removeable impediment to receiving it, is __________."

Alright, here we are at the heart of the discussion: you can speculate about what goes into that blank all you want, I can all I want, top theologians can all they want, BUT... if the conclusion you or I or they draw that goes into that blank contradicts the necessity of Baptism, then no-one can conclude it. Period. Because in the pursuit of theology, the principles of theology, the articles of Faith, cannot be contradicted by the conclusion, or the conclusions are false. No matter how good they sound. Those are the rules of theology, and that those rules are as Thomistic as can be.

That is essence of this discussion.

Alright, now, of your position and my position. My position is that I hold the doctrine, and that this is sufficient:

"As Clement of Alexandria testifies, the doctrine of the Savior is indeed perfect in itself and wanteth naught, since it is the power and wisdom of God." --Aeterni Patris

...and the Church has always been clear as to the necessity of Baptism, and so, I hold it. I hold the doctrine.

All I'm trying to tell you is this: the Church has never definitively placed any explanation into that blank line above. It has never defined anything that goes there, it has never declared anything to go there, or given a binding character to any speculation, conclusion or theory that might fit in that blank line.

You are telling me that it has, and that it is official, and that I must accept it as Church doctrine. The Church has not done this; it just hasn't. Look at the CCC: it doesn't even do it for infants, for Heaven's sake. Who could be more innocent than that?

This is a valid theological discussion.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 23, 2004.

Gentlemen, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but...until and unless Emerald and the rest of you DEFINE what you are talking about when you say "Church" and "Baptism" and what is at stake with respect to Church teaching on these same concepts, you will NEVER come to a conclusion because you will be talking on two different levels.

This is why I'm the only one talking about ordinary and extraordinary ECONOMIES of salvation, and the distiction between belonging to Christ via the ORDINARY path: sacramental baptism into a Catholic community and EXTRAORDINARY path: baptism of desire and blood into the Catholic Communio known only to God.

In either case the soul entering God's love in this life and the next enters through baptism into the communio with other souls.

The Church is not just what is visible to us: not just parishes and priests, bishops and theologians. Suffering souls in purgatory are also members as are the angels and human souls in heaven.

^the word: Baptism - as Emerald has agreed - includes primarily the sacrament, but also the concepts of desire and blood... which obviously are not the norm and not something we "plan on" or can suppose happens.

Jews in Jesus' time were obliged to be circumcised and follow the Law in order "to be saved". But the thief on the cross...was he a Jew? Was he circumcised? Maybe. Maybe not. In either case, Christ brought him to paradise without baptism of water. But the exception only means that God is merciful not that we haven't been positively commanded to evangelize and baptise!

Thus this whole debate has really no bearing on our daily lives and pursuits and still vital responsibility to evangelize and baptise! Knowing that God can save people on his own doesn't make his command that I evangelize and baptise people in my orbit any less urgent.

Somehow though Emerald seems to think this de fide distinction requires us to stop evangelizing and stop baptising and sit around speaking German.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 23, 2004.

Emerald, you wrote,

"the Church has never definitively placed any explanation into that blank line above."

That is false.

"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." -Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore

This is not 'theological speculation'.

"20. Nor must it 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";[3] 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 Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." -Pius XII, Humani Generis

So, the discussion is closed. There is a valid theological question, however. I posted it earlier. Read it c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y.

"If those who are not members of the Church can be saved, what is their relationship with the Church, outside of which there is no salvation?"

That is open to discussion. If you deny the truth of the first half, you're in Feeney-land, which unfortunately does not, and never has shared territory with the Catholic Church. But we already know the beginnings of the answer. (Hint: it's in some of Pius IX's other documents, the letter to the Bishop of Boston, Pius XII's Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, John Paul II's Redemptoris Missio, and in other places, too).

"...the Church has always been clear as to the necessity of Baptism."

Yes, she has been; twice in the Council of Trent, and even more emphatically in the Catechism of Trent, desire, votum--with the grace of perfect charity--suffices for the effects of baptism. There is no other explanation of this except that of Aquinas, which has stood unchallenged, that the baptism of blood and desire are indeed called "baptism" by virtue of their effects, though not properly called "sacraments".

Did Trent contradict itself? Are you at liberty to believe that it did? 'Fraid not.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 23, 2004.

Joe,

Emerald's most grievious errors involve his support for the teachings of the excommunicated Fr. Leonard Feeney (which he can no longer deny was aimed at Feeney's teachings), and his individualistic approach to Papal encylicals, calling parts he doesn't like "theological speculation."

He also has never apologized for any of his shenanigans--doctored documents, twisting my words to make him look like a martyr, and implicating the Roman Catholic Church in heresy.

I understand the distinction you're talking about, and it is absolutely correct.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), February 23, 2004.

Anon,

I admire your efforts, but am suprised you haven't figured out yet that Emerald doesn't CARE what you post. He's not going to change his opinion, regardless. Good reading though...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 23, 2004.

"What is not Traditional is Emerald's dissent, dishonesty, and open rebellion against the Magisterium of the Church and the terrorism of her followers. He needs to be banned."

You are absolutely correct, "anon(ymous@God.bless)". The only problem is that I have been saying basically the same thing for well over a year, and I have been ignored by four separate moderators. This "Emerald" appeared to be an orthodox Catholic in 2001 and through most of 2002, but then he went sour (or revealed his previously hidden leanings) later in 2002. The result has been an endless conflict -- he promoting the Feeneyite heresy and being a buddy/supporter of several schismatics -- throughout all of 2003 and the beginning of 2004. But where was the banning I called for, perhaps 16 months ago? It never happened. Will it happen now? Don't hold your breath.

The non-banning of this person (and of various other souls that deserved to be banned) has destroyed 80% of the joy I used to experience in coming to this forum from 2000 through 2002. I noticed today that "Faith" has just been banned from the forum. Why? Only because she openly revealed that she is here to proselytize Catholics. Well, hellllloooo! I pointed out the fact that "Faith" was a "missionary" (lingering here contrary to the rules of the forum) within one week of her arrival, perhaps six months ago -- and I called for her to be banned right then. As usual, I was ignored, despite being right. Will moderators ever learn to rely on people whose judgment is more reliable than theirs (e.g., me and you, anon)? Will "Emerald" and pals be allowed to remain here until they too openly admit to proselytizing Catholics? How about three guys who have made more than a year-long crusade out of bashing all the marriage tribunals in the U.S.? When will they be banned?

Another portion of my former enjoyment of the forum has just begun to be destroyed via the unjustifiable deletion of certain messages written by orthodox Catholics. In fact, "anon," it is almost astonishing that your own posts, above, have not been deleted, since they contain "stronger language" than some messages that have been deleted (including one of mine, yesterday). There is hardly any point left in coming to this forum now, since good people have to "walk on eggshells" and leave so many important things unsaid, for fear of having their messages purged. (Oh, dear Lord in Heaven, please grant this forum topnotch moderation.)

However, "anon," I did enjoy looking at the table you created -- and I realized, even before you mentioned it, that you must have worked quite hard on it.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 23, 2004.

I don’t find any of Emerald’s posts offensive. In my brief tenure as moderator I haven’t received one complaint about Emerald other than yours John. Being in “open rebellion of the Church” (by the way, he might disagree with you on this point) is not grounds for expulsion from this forum. He is entitled to his opinion as are we all. We even let non-Catholics in here. Are they not in open rebellion of the Church as well? Provided they comply with our rules, we don’t expel them? Emerald’s posts are courteous and respectful. I don’t see him monopolizing threads. I see no evidence that he is out to “convert” us all. I see no cause to expel him.

Faith, was accorded opportunities to comply with our rules. In the spirit of Christian kindness she was permitted to remain here for a time in hope that she would eventually comply with our guidelines. Some will say she was allowed to remain too long and others might say not long enough.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 23, 2004.

My thanks to Frank and John for their support, and to Ed for his courteous explanation.

Ed, the above post with the HTML table was originally written as an e- mail to you requesting that Emerald be banned. Before I sent it, I read the forum rules, and I agree with you that, based on those rules alone, there is not sufficient justification for banning Emerald.

• He confines his schismatic posts to a couple of threads, which are packed full of explanations of his errors, so the danger to Catholics are mollified somewhat. If he wrote expansively in several threads, that would be a different matter.
• He is not vulgar.

Nevertheless, I hope you are very wary of Emerald, not least of which because (as Frank mentioned) he is completely relentless, and (as I have tried to point out) he is deceptive in manner and action.

Emerald does not believe, or won't admit, that he is objectively in schism. It is one thing for someone to have opinions, or even for an open Protestant to prosthelytize. But Emerald is passing off his opinions as orthodox Catholic teaching.

Not even "Faith" did that.

The other Traditionalists--'Sane Trad', 'J@ke', 'Isabel', 'FGC'--are less dangerous than Emerald precisely because they're more honest and open. The reason why I'm here writing long tracts against Emerald are that (a) I love doctrine. It is my poetry and my treasure, and I love living in the pages of Denzinger and the archives of Vatican.va, and I am driven to extreme anger by people who mistreat it, and (b) I am really concerned Emerald would pull away Catholic neophytes from love of the authentic, living Tradition of the Church.

I respect your decision, however, and stand by it.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 23, 2004.

Dear Ed:
No one wants to be persecuted for expressing his honest opinions. I agree Emerald hasn't been openly disrespectful or abusive; which would deserve banning. I have no wish to brand him schismatic, heretical, Feenyist or un-Catholic. He's just a Catholic of another type.

Unfortunately for many good Catholics here, and possibly many good lurkers, Emerald will not desist from provoking them with his stream of consciousness. It offers little constructive criticism or good will. The point relentlessly driven is how superior his Catholic faith is to any other Catholic's faith after Vatican Council II. We acknowledge his rights to the opinion, and to voice the same. But he is a little stone in everybody's shoe. He insists on torturing us with his particular gospel, called traditionalism. What he means by it is ''Unspoiled Catholic Faith''. That is, unspoiled in comparison to the Church in the world, OUR Church. He is the real Catholic. We are ''pseudo-Catholics'' as he sees things.

As I said before; we acknowledge his rights to the opinion, and to voice it. But we're long since TIRED of it, repeated without relief over years already. Every single post we see from Emerald serves that agenda; knock the Novus Ordo and extol ONLY the older traditions-- REPEAT it, day after day.

Who wouldn't like to see this type of perpetual burrowing, termite-fashion, in the unity of our faith, --STOPPED? I know it gives Emerald great satisfaction. But for other, more sensitive souls, like John Gecik, it becomes like a putrid smell; a cause for hatred. That's not why we follow Jesus Christ. We should love one another as He commands. Emerald is a divider.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2004.

I don't want him banned either and not just because we're friends (amazing no?). Posts like his keep good Catholics sharp, even though something like this thread is so slam dunk easy: define your terms, make a distinction, and viola, case closed.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 23, 2004.

Anon, while Emerald may, as you say, use creative tactics to win people over to his side of an argument, that alone, is not grounds for expulsion from our forum. It seems to me you are transferring your frustration of being unable to convince Emerald to see your side of the argument and, your indignation at what you perceive to be his mistreatment of Church doctrine, into a rationalization of grounds for his dismissal. Provided Emerald is not disrespectful of others, does not dominate threads and overall, generally complies with the rules of this forum, he is not obliged to see things your way. While he may, in your opinion, be obliged by the Church to give full assent to Her teachings, that is not a criteria here for allowing participants to remain in the forum. Differing views are permitted and in fact encouraged under controlled conditions in order that the Truths of the Church might be discovered by those who visit.

You have however, raised an extremely valid point about Emerald, or anyone else for that matter, being allowed to pull Catholic neophytes away through a methodical, planned, covert strategy of prosthelytizing through manipulation and control of threads. It’s a very fine line in discerning legitimate debate on the one hand, from a hidden clandestine objective on the other. This can only be ascertained through observation over time - and, as I am finding out, in the end, usually comes down to a judgement call on the part of the Moderator.

Of course it can work the other way also. I agree with Joe. I've seen Emerald bring out some of the best in our Catholics here.

Eugene, because of Anon’s comments and the comments you have shared here, I am much more cognizant of the problem some Catholics perceive exists. I will be evermore mindful of it in the future and would caution not only Emerald, but everyone, to please respect the rules of our forum. Our Christian faith demands that we exercise tolerance and understanding in such instances. Let us pray for same.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 23, 2004.

I'm going to let is slide for a while, maybe for all of Lent anyways, but just these things:

Joe: "Gentlemen, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but...until and unless Emerald and the rest of you DEFINE what you are talking about when you say "Church" and "Baptism" and what is at stake with respect to Church teaching on these same concepts, you will NEVER come to a conclusion because you will be talking on two different levels."

I think that's right; but there's two ways to approach a definition of it: by it's principle or by it's effects. How can you get more principled that to describe the Church as The Mystical Body of Christ as Pope Pius XII did in Mystici Corporis Christi? Not that he was the first to do it; it was always held to be the case that it was so. Baptism is exactly what incorporates a person into that Mystical Body of Christ, which is synonymous with the Catholic Church, the Universal Church.

When people talk loosely about the visible Church, I believe there is the temptation to slip into various univocations regarding the boundaries of the Church, and as a result, boundaries become obscured and undefinable. It's not like you can stand at the foyer of your local parish church with one of those clicker-counters and add up the Mystical Body; you don't know who is in a state of grace, who there to visit, who's Baptised, etc. You'll never be able to guage it that way. The Supreme Pontiff, no doubt, is visible and the visible head of the Church, but beyond that it gets hazier as it rings outward. This is analysis, though, working backward to principles from their effects or assumed effects. This would be the classic Aristotelian "better known to us". It works well in philosophy, but does it work in theology when your principles are divinely revealed? We just don't come to hold our Faith by analysis; we choose to hold it first in principle.

God knows who is actually incorporated and who isn't whether we know so or not. But that's not to say that we don't know the principle by which one is incorporated: we do. We may not be able to count it or quantify or quantize it, but the principle is there, and we know the principle: membership in the Mystical Body of Christ, militant, suffering and triumphant.

If we know it it from this principle, imho it seems to me that we then know it in a way similar to the classic Arostotelian "less known to us, better known by nature". Maybe not exactly the same, but something similar to that.

This is how we can say we know exactly what the truth is while not being able to identify the particular instance. What's more, is that the doctrines of the Faith are divinely revealed and not derived from natural reason, so we know with the greatest certitude, which is by Faith.

If from the outset we define the Church on principle, then we have the answer as to what the Church is. If, on the other hand, we begin with it's effects better known to us, visible or otherwise, and don't know the principle or the cause, then we do not truly know what the Church is. To really know something is to know it causally or from principle, or in this case by Faith.

The principle which incorporates one into the Mystical Body of Christ is Baptism, without a doubt. If we approach the question from principle, then we have the answer as to what the Church is, and width, depth, height and so forth. We may not be able to say with surety who is in it, but we know by Faith what it is, and we also know that someone is incorporate into specifically by Baptism. We can't clicker-count the Mystical Body in the foyer, but we have absolutely no doubt by Faith what it is that is The Catholic Church.

So that's how one can hold doctrine, yet still not judge this or that person to be within or without. We just don't know who is, but... we can most certainly can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no salvation outside the Church and that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

That means we know this: if someone makes it to Heaven, they were Baptised. The "whole thing" kind of baptised, minus nothing.

We could find ourselves in a whirlwind of absurdity looking around us at a world seemingly in complete and utter conflict with these two doctrinal realities, but if we are to hold these beliefs, but we must not tweak them just in order to make the sense of the whirlwind or make it more appealing. It's what has to be done with an item of Faith: hold the line and permit no one, no thing, no circumstance, no event to cast it into doubt or cast it down or dilute it so that it is no longer what it was.

Just as a short note, anon, I think that what Pius XII is doing is trying desparately, almost pleading, to get people to hold tight to the sanctity and purity of The Mystical Body of Christ and the protection of it's borders, to keep it a garden enclosed, so to speak. When I read through those documents it seems to me that he knows the depths in which the world is about to plunge itself into in regards to loss of Faith and it's practice. The statements you provide above, however, do not specifically point to a way of salvation apart from the Mystical Body of Christ, into which a person is incorporated by Baptism. I think he's trying to accomodate hords of questioners while trying also to hold the line doctrinally. Look:

"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." -Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore

Just briefly, to point out two things: in the underlined portions, note the jump from natural to supernatural virtue. He upholds the Faith by keeping intact the rule that it is by supernatural virtue that a man is saved, not natural virtue. He does not, however, say how this occurs. That's important to take note of. In other words, there is nothing explicit that we can draw from this text by which we able to say "yes, there is an exception, and it is ________". It's just not there.

Secondly, the bolded part: "anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments". Does such a person exist, that has not committed a deliberate sin? Only an infant, as far as I would imagine. But even in the CCC, babies not baptised are not said to be able to enjoy the Beatific Vision. Remember, Original Sin is real and a real doctrine, and it does in fact, by it's presence alone, bar one from the Beatific Vision unless removed by Baptism. This, however doesn't necesary mean those infants are experiencing punishments for sins they never committed.

It's inconclusive at best, and certainly not at all a doctrine or even a new undestanding of an old doctrine, or even a teaching we can grasp on to and call "another way of salvation". If anything, I think in the totality of his works, Pius XII is doing the opposite: trying desparately to stem the tide of the destruction of beliefs held by Faith, the doctrines, in a world that is hellbent on just getting rid of God and everything to do with Him.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 23, 2004.

I'm out for Lent; give you all a break.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 23, 2004.

Emerald, I hold strictly to Pius XII's definition of the Church. You do not see me talking about anonymous Christians, the invisible Church, and so on and so forth. But then, neither do you see the Magisterium, either. Twice she has said that, though people who are not known to be Christians can attain salvation, they are not thereby to be called members. You write, "if someone makes it to Heaven, they were Baptised. The "whole thing" kind of baptised, minus nothing." But that conflicts with Trent, and arguably Florence as well. Two canons in Trent, and its Catechism, explicitly include 'votum' as proffering the effects of baptism in case of death. This, combined with a state of Grace and perfect charity, provides the groundwork for salvation. This is further supported by the fact that Trent affirms the deferment of baptism for adults, but not for infants. The only justification for this deferment, given by Aquinas, is that adults are in less danger. Why? Votum. This makes perfect sense. The Church is concerned about the salvation of souls--how could she defer baptism for adults until after catechesis? Why not baptize now and teach later, to (at least) secure their soul? The answer is that Votum is sufficient until they are taught the faith. Besides, the Letter to the Archbishop of Boston already cites Trent as a support: "In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807). Furthermore, Florence also instructed the deferment of baptism for adults. And, it copies word-for-word Aquinas' tract about this deferment, again stating clearly that infants are to be urgently baptized because they have no other help. It begs the question: what help is there for adults? Answer? 'Votum' Of course, this is all in keeping with the absolute necessity of Baptism, for the baptism of desire is properly called a 'baptism' by nature of its effects. It is not a sacrament nor does it confer membership, but it is nevertheless a baptism, and noone has taught otherwise. You wrote, "we must not tweak them just in order to make the sense of the whirlwind or make it more appealing." Nobody did. Baptism of desire and blood are ancient. Nobody asked if they could be 'implicit' until late in the game, to which question Pius IX answered unambiguously: yes. And his successors followed suit. You write, "Pius XII is doing is trying desparately, almost pleading, to get people to hold tight to the sanctity and purity of The Mystical Body of Christ and the protection of it's borders, to keep it a garden enclosed, so to speak." First of all, you're right that lots of people today have never read Mystici Corporis Christi and overlook its inclusion in Vatican II. So, some people still talk about the 'invisible church' and that nonsense. They're wrong. However, Pius XII never meant to override, or correct, or deny the possibility of baptism of implicit desire/invincible ignorance. Remember, he approved the Holy Office's letter to the Archbishop of Boston, personally overseeing its translation. You're splitting popes into two again. I hate that. You write, regarding how a non-Christian might practice the 'virtue of divine light and grace,' "[Pius IX] does not, however, say how this occurs." You're grasping at straws, Emerald. Gary Hoge over at Catholic Outlook would call your last bit of statements, "hearing hoofbeats behind you, and thinking 'zebra'!" Do you honestly believe that Pius IX makes the same essentialist seperation between "natural law--its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts," and what you call "supernatural virtue"?

I mean, look at the sentence for heaven's sake.

THESE: "those who are struggling with invincible ignorance" who are "Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God," ...are THIS: "...they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." Subject and predicate. Pius IX attributes the latter part to the former part. Unless this is the worst translation in the world, that is pretty darn clear. You wrote, "there is nothing explicit that we can draw from this text by which we able to say "yes, there is an exception, and it is ________"" There is and there isn't. Baptism of desire is exceptional. It is not an exception to the necessity of baptism, but to the form of baptism. Since if someone were saved in this manner, they would not be, properly speaking, either members of, or outside of the Church. That is not a novelty, but a necessary consequence of assent to Trent's teaching on baptism of desire. Look, it is not so hard to understand. I lack the best words for it, so I'll borrow from the trusty 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and bolden the most relevant points: "It should be observed that those who are thus saved are not entirely outside the pale of the Church. The will to fulfill all God's commandments is, and must be, present in all of them. Such a wish implicitly includes the desire for incorporation with the visible Church: for this, though they know it not, has been commanded by God. They thus belong to the Church by desire (voto). Moreover, there is a true sense in which they may be said to be saved through the Church... The primary purpose of those actual graces which God bestows upon those outside the Church is to draw them within the fold. Thus, even in the case in which God Saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church's graces. They are joined to the Church... The same text continues, "...in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body."--but this is misleading. It is forgivable because this article was written before Mystici Corporis Christ. The New Catholic Encyclopedia corrects this theological error--the Church's soul and body are not distinct.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 23, 2004.

I apologize for the last post. Note: if you use certain HTML codes, that's what happens.

Emerald, I hold strictly to Pius XII's definition of the Church. You do not see me talking about anonymous Christians, the invisible Church, and so on and so forth. But then, neither do you see the Magisterium, either. Twice she has said that, though people who are not known to be Christians can attain salvation, they are not thereby to be called members.

You write, "if someone makes it to Heaven, they were Baptised. The "whole thing" kind of baptised, minus nothing."

But that conflicts with Trent, and arguably Florence as well. Two canons in Trent, and its Catechism, explicitly include 'votum' as proffering the effects of baptism in case of death. This, combined with a state of Grace and perfect charity, provides the groundwork for salvation. This is further supported by the fact that Trent affirms the deferment of baptism for adults, but not for infants. The only justification for this deferment, given by Aquinas, is that adults are in less danger. Why? Votum.

This makes perfect sense. The Church is concerned about the salvation of souls--how could she defer baptism for adults until after catechesis? Why not baptize now and teach later, to (at least) secure their soul? The answer is that Votum is sufficient until they are taught the faith.

Besides, the Letter to the Archbishop of Boston already cites Trent as a support: "In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).

Furthermore, Florence also instructed the deferment of baptism for adults. And, it copies word-for-word Aquinas' tract about this deferment, again stating clearly that infants are to be urgently baptized because they have no other help. It begs the question: what help is there for adults? Answer? 'Votum'

Of course, this is all in keeping with the absolute necessity of Baptism, for the baptism of desire is properly called a 'baptism' by nature of its effects. It is not a sacrament nor does it confer membership, but it is nevertheless a baptism, and noone has taught otherwise.

You wrote, "we must not tweak them just in order to make the sense of the whirlwind or make it more appealing."

Nobody did. Baptism of desire and blood are ancient. Nobody asked if they could be 'implicit' until late in the game, to which question Pius IX answered unambiguously: yes. And his successors followed suit.

You write, "Pius XII is doing is trying desparately, almost pleading, to get people to hold tight to the sanctity and purity of The Mystical Body of Christ and the protection of it's borders, to keep it a garden enclosed, so to speak."

First of all, you're right that lots of people today have never read Mystici Corporis Christi and overlook its inclusion in Vatican II. So, some people still talk about the 'invisible church' and that nonsense. They're wrong. However, Pius XII never meant to override, or correct, or deny the possibility of baptism of implicit desire/invincible ignorance. Remember, he approved the Holy Office's letter to the Archbishop of Boston, personally overseeing its translation. You're splitting popes into two again. I hate that.

You write, regarding how a non-Christian might practice the 'virtue of divine light and grace,' "[Pius IX] does not, however, say how this occurs."

You're grasping at straws, Emerald. Gary Hoge over at Catholic Outlook would call your last bit of statements, "hearing hoofbeats behind you, and thinking 'zebra'!" Do you honestly believe that Pius IX makes the same essentialist seperation between "natural law--its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts," and what you call "supernatural virtue"?

I mean, look at the sentence for heaven's sake.

THESE: "those who are struggling with invincible ignorance" who are "Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God,"

...are THIS: "...they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace."

Subject and predicate. Pius IX attributes the latter part to the former part. Unless this is the worst translation in the world, that is pretty darn clear.

You wrote, "there is nothing explicit that we can draw from this text by which we able to say "yes, there is an exception, and it is ________""

There is and there isn't. Baptism of desire is exceptional. It is not an exception to the necessity of baptism, but to its form. Since if someone were saved in this manner, they would not be, properly speaking, either members of, or outside of the Church. That is not a novelty, but a necessary consequence of assent to Trent's teaching on baptism of desire.

Look, it is not so hard to understand. I lack the best words for it, so I'll borrow from the trusty 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and bolden the most relevant points:

"It should be observed that those who are thus saved are not entirely outside the pale of the Church. The will to fulfill all God's commandments is, and must be, present in all of them. Such a wish implicitly includes the desire for incorporation with the visible Church: for this, though they know it not, has been commanded by God. They thus belong to the Church by desire (voto). Moreover, there is a true sense in which they may be said to be saved through the Church... The primary purpose of those actual graces which God bestows upon those outside the Church is to draw them within the fold. Thus, even in the case in which God Saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church's graces. They are joined to the Church..."

The same text continues, "...in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body."--but this is misleading. It is forgivable because this article was written before Mystici Corporis Christ. The New Catholic Encyclopedia corrects this theological error--the Church's soul and body are not distinct.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 23, 2004.

Shoot; sorry, one more post:

"It is not an exception to the necessity of baptism, but to its form."

But see, here's what I've been trying to get at: can form exist separate from matter in reality, and not just in the abstract while under consideration by the intellect? There is something of a composite reality in a sacrament, in a similar way that the body of a deceased "man" is no longer the person but merely his body.

Take marriage for instance: I believe it's the case this sacrament is not complete until the marriage is consummated. At the altar there takes place a vow, votum, but the sacrament is not complete until the marriage is consummated, consummation being the matter of the sacrament. In fact, as everyone knows, if there is an impediment to consummation, the marriage will not be permitted. Similarly, votum is necessary. What I'm getting at is that both are necessary as both matter and form are necessary to make up the composite, which cannot exist as what it is unless both are present. To say that only one or the other would suffice is to call into question the existence of the sacrament itself.

You can see how Thomas works this question in the link to the proof above; but, other Saints and doctors have worked the question differently from a direction more in line with maintaining an intact composite.

In either case, one thing is clear: the sufficiency of votum alone sufficing is a theological topic, problem, question, consideration, whatever... but not a doctrine. It's been in common use as doctrine, but it isn't. The doctrine of Baptism itself, however, is precise and complete, and by the very nature of the doctrine's source, Divine Revelation, the doctrine itself takes precedence over any reasonings, theories, or speculations surrounding it which are derived from human reason. In it's doctrinal format, as divinely revealed, it is exclusively presented as a composite: it is proposed as complete only when identified with the presence of both the matter and the form, and it is presented in an exclusive format.

So when I would go to the street with this understanding, and someone would ask "what about this special cases where it seems impossible to get baptism", I would propose the same true mantra as any ecumenist and would say "God is good, God is powerful, God is loving, etc. etc. blah blah", which is all true, BUT: I wouldn't promise something that couldn't exist. I would merely say that perhaps God would grant the whole enchilada baptism beyond our sight, matter and form. Why not; He is God, after all. But at least this way, I don't call into question Catholic doctrine.

This is important to maintain imho because it drives a stake into the heart of the naturalism-syncretism universal salvation heresy; there is in fact such an thing as this, right?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 23, 2004.

Anon,

I, an ordinary laity in communion with the pope, appreciate your efforts in rescuing schismatic "traditionalists" from invincible ignorance. You're doing a fine job.

Emerald,

During lent, may each time you gaze upon the crucifix remind you that Jesus Christ suffered and died not only for you but also for those "outside the Church" and for those who were "not baptized."

-- (ashes2@shes.dust), February 24, 2004.

Emerald, you wrote,

"the sufficiency of votum alone sufficing is a theological topic, problem, question, consideration, whatever... but not a doctrine"

First of all, you muddle the issue by calling it "votum alone." I never said that, and neither did the Church. The desire--to be in the Church--is such that God knows it through and through; it implies an active will towards following Him. That suffices for Justification, but not salvation. Salvation requires perfect charity and repentence, and is a dubious prospect without the helps given gratuitously to Catholics, as Pius XII said.

And for you to say that it's "not a doctrine" is simply either ignorant or mad or deception. IT IS IN TRENT. It is the only possible justification for deferring baptism for adults. It is affirmed wholly and explicitly by Pius IX, and who is no less a Pope, John Paul II too. You have to be completely in self-deception to think that the justification through voto is "mere speculation." NO: the matter is CLOSED to such speculation. The deferment of baptism for adult catechumens is proof alive for you to see.

Emerald, you ask, "can form exist separate from matter in reality?"

Of course it can. Remember the incorruptibility of the intellectual soul? I'm not completely ignorant. On this earth, we're limited to mediated forms of interaction with the Divine. That's the whole point of Incarnation, of Sacraments, etc. But "The wind blows where it wills" (John 3:8). Christ's words, "unless you are born of water and spirit," if rendered fundamentalistically, imply a limit on God's own power. It is necessary to posit that God can and does work in and out of the visible realm.

Besides, what kind of "full water baptism" can be performed on a soul with no body? You spoke of post-mortum Baptism. But what kind of priest can pour physical oil and water on a soul? And if that priest were Christ the High Priest, why would material signs be necessary? Without the body, what good is a Sacrament?

No Emerald, baptism in voto is a doctrine, taught by the same Council that declared the necessity of baptism and of water. In fact, it's a PART OF the doctrine of the necessity of baptism. It isn't seperate. You cannot say that one came from God and the other from men. Remember the repentent thief at Christ's side.

Look, let's lay it on the table. I won't even bolden the important part:

Emerald: "it is presented in an exclusive format."

Trent: "CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."

This is not "inconclusive" to anybody but traditionalists. Why is it that they go on about the simplicity and ease of understanding and divinely revealed nature of certain dogmas, but of others (or even unfavorable forms of the same ones), they protest of absolute incomprehensibility? Horse droppings. You're willfully denying the forest for the trees--something you were accusing orthodox faithful Catholics of doing.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 24, 2004.

Emerald, you also wrote,

"I wouldn't promise something that couldn't exist."

Then you better break out the emergency Baptism kit and go save the souls of those poor catechumens. DO NOT accuse the Church or any faithful Catholic of "promising salvation to non-Christians." If you're only speaking of justification without a sacramental baptism, well, you're just in schism and that's that.

You write, "I would merely say that perhaps God would grant the whole enchilada baptism beyond our sight, matter and form. Why not; He is God, after all."

Your insistence on matter is both philosophically inconsistent (matter baptism on an immaterial soul?) and in error according to the Council of Trent.

"But at least this way, I don't call into question Catholic doctrine."

Yes, but you also have to cook up ridiculous, freakish misreadings of Trent everything that came after just so that you can believe you're not in schism. It's not the Church's fault if your ideology forces you to hold only half a doctrine. While we're talking about the "Whole Enchilada," just what do you think of John Paul II's Encyclical letters?

"...the naturalism-syncretism universal salvation heresy; there is in fact such an thing as this, right?"

Emerald, you either have a bad habit of not reading my posts or else you're mad, bad, or God.

Again, from the Letter to the Archbishop of Boston approved by the Holy See:

"Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 24, 2004.

If I may be so bold, how does this relate to schism more than heresy?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 24, 2004.

Emerald, you write, "Why not say that some Catholics are promising this? I see it all the time."

Note I said, 'faithful' Catholics. I should have said, knowledgeable, faithful Catholics. There's been a break-down of catechesis, you know. But in any case, the Magisterium does not teach optimism or laxity or religious indifference; she's condemned those several times, before and after Vatican II.

"This is one letter to one archbishop, and that does not make for a doctrine or binding belief"

Blah blah, 'I don't have to assent, it's not doctrine' blah. Cafeteria Catholicism run amok. There's nothing in that letter which isn't referenced to an Encyclical or to Trent. It is an official act of the Holy Office, approved by the Holy See. The reason it's so valuable is because (a) it serves as a bibliography of justification in voto within the Church's authentic Tradition, (b) it confirms that Feeney's doctrines are not Catholic and a danger to everybody, and (c) it reveals the mind of Pius XII himself, who oversaw the translation of the document into English.

Nobody is trying to "trump Trent;" you're trying to trump any Pope's ability to teach Trent. The source of your resistance has nothing to do with the obviousness of any contradiction--you just want to hold on to your belief that something's dirty in the Vatican and you're on the cutting edge of the cleaning crew.

Well, faithful Catholics don't buy that. By definition.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 24, 2004.

I'm out for reals for Lent; God bless, anon.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 24, 2004.

Blessings to you, and your family this Lenten season, Emerald.

Blessed be God a million, million, million times.

-- - (David@excite.com), February 25, 2004.