This is the last installment of the series on the controversy with the advocates of 'unknown ways' of joining the Catholic Church such as implicit baptism of desire. Interestingly, the case for EENS turned out to depend on accepting one letter, Suprema haec sacra, of 1949, discussing the case of Fr. Feeney. I posted the exchange almost in full so as to demonstrate the difficulty of discussing the issue with the Catholics strongly committed to the Vatican II. I will post my comments on the exchange later, should time permit.
Peter Albert said...
PJP, you raised a very important question--where is the Church? Now, I suppose this is according to you a very simple question to answer, but it was not always so easy to answer, and I'll just bring up two historical cases when it was as difficult:
a) Athanasius vs. Arius
b) Great Western Schism.
In the first case, actually the Arian bishops ruled their dioceses and yet they lost their jurisdiction due to heresy.
In the second case, there were saints who supported in good faith papal claimants who later turned out to be antipopes.
Now, one lesson we might draw is that both issues were not seen at the time in the light they came to be seen by historians. So what were Catholics to do in those times? Use the means of salvation of the Church and convert the non-Catholics to the Catholic faith (again the Athanasian Creed comes in handy).
PJP, to close my position on the EENS, I'll just posit the following fact: lay Catholics are totally entitled to assert the truths of the faith that have been infallibly declared just as the necessity of holding the Catholic faith for salvation is. I could quote multiple councils and popes to show that by the time of the letter on the case of Fr. Feeney, Rome had spoken definitively and this documents does not change a bit of the teaching.If we are to continue the discussion, I have one condition--that we do not go off on tangents such as the Vatican II vs. pre-Vatican II teaching (for that reason I quoted the opening address of John XXIII who clearly denied the possibility that the council could change the meaning of the established dogma).
Let me end in the following way: imagine that the modernists would want to compromise on the dogma of immaculate conception of Blessed Virgin and would find that indeed Thomas Aquinas had denied that truth (when it was still not defined)--how would you react if not the way I reacted? Would you try to find all the ways in which this 'broader interpretation' could be accommodated or would you say, no, that's it, that's clearly outside the Catholic tradition?Peter
July 24, 2007 3:11 PM
PJP said...
Fair treatment, Peter? You aren’t giving yourself a fair treatment by quoting such things out of context, are you? Are you giving Vatican II fair treatment? Are you giving the Dimond Bros fair treatment? Baptism of desire? Ecumenical Councils? The Church? Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will never prevail?
First of all, you neglect many of the questions I have posed to you. I wonder why? What do you mean by “exclusive salvation”?
Second, what you accept of Suprema Haec Sacra supports the entire document as what “must be understood in that sense in which the Church [NOT Peter Albert] herself understands it.” Don’t you see what you’re doing? You taking what you want to read and not reading the entire context of what the Church teaches. This has led you to make false conclusions.
Furthermore, you quote a non-infallible theologian, Fr. Fenton, to tell you an authoritative document is not itself infallible. Well, that doesn’t make sense, does it? Are we as catholic ONLY to submit to those statements that carry an infallible character? Is that the traditional Catholic way?
All your other “traditional resources” (Haydoc, Most Holy Family Monastery, etc) carry no infallibility either, do they, Peter? No. You are relying on sources (for EENS that negate the foundation of EENS. What?) without looking to the foundation and fundamental source of EENS, the Catholic Church and HER way of understanding it. So it seems like you are contracting yourself.
You do not reply to the entirety of Unitatis Redintegratio no. 3? Why is that? You have also failed to answer my questions regarding the salvation of only those who are formal members of the Church. Peter, does one have to be in a Catholic pew to be saved? No, you simply say that I call the Dimond Bros. “dangerous.” Well, I say that because it is true. They wrench quotes out of context all the time, condemning Christ's vicars since Vatican II as apostates and heretics and you’ll be following their example, if you're not already, if you are not vigilant. Please beware. Do your homework and don't trust the Brothers Dimond. Yes, Peter, there is only one acceptable faith, and that is the Catholic faith. But there is extraordinary and ordinary means by which to come to such faith? Yet does faith alone save? No one is contending that here.
Peace, PJP
July 24, 2007 3:25 PM
Peter Albert said...
Dear PJP,I'm not calling for fair treatment, but frankly you are a second discussant who, after being presented with the evidence, exclaimed that the gates of hell have not prevailed and that he cannot accept that the Vatican II documents could contain error (although I had not advanced such an argument in the discussion).
Since you are a fellow Catholic by virtue of baptism and the sacraments, I don't just want to quit the discussion and instead respond with all sincerity.I have quoted extensively infallible statements of the popes from Leo to Pius XII to illustrate the concept of 'exclusive salvation' -- if you don't like the term, I'll settle for 'the necessity of holding the Catholic faith for salvation'.
Before you raised a number of issues dealing with the magisterium, permanence of the dogma and the boundaries of the church, I merely pointed out the main problem with Mr. Sungenis' alternative to the sacrament of baptism--namely the danger of staying in mortal sin when one does not have access to sacramental confession. It's a serious pastoral issue, and one that should concern us as Catholics as well--we cannot just stake everything on the perfect contrition.
PJP, Catholic faith is a POSITIVE system of theology and you have so far demonstrated a negation of a string of quotes from the Popes and Councils. Your only reference is the letter Suprema haec sacra, which, although authoritative (i.e. valid in the matter of discipline) is not a source of doctrine! For one, it was not addressed by the Pope to the entire Church with the purpose of teaching doctrine or morals. Hence, it had the authority of the Congregation yet it did not define doctrine, but merely it elucidated it. If it was not ex cathedra, error could creep in there. Haven't you heard, PJP, of the Popes who made theological errors in private? John XXII is one of them. (not John XXIII, but XXII, check it out for yourself). Vatican I does not provide for unlimited infallibility, as we know :) -- now that would be a stumbling block for the separated brethren, wouldn't it.
Why do you want me to discuss the interpretation of the Vatican II decrees and documents, if they are only being interpreted now, and John Paul II and Benedict XVI blamed all the liturgical and doctrinal abuse on the 'misunderstanding' of the Council. Sorry, my job was to alert to the danger of the idea of 'baptism of desire' which indeed goes all the way back to Augustine, Ambrose and Thomas Aquinas, but is not stated explicitly in a single ex cathedra papal statement. Did I say that Vatican II decrees and documents contain heresy? No, I didn't. Did I say that Vatican II has any bearing on the dogma that has been defined earlier? I believe the opposite since it can be shown that the necessity of holding the Catholic faith for salvation was established earlier, and the definition of a dogma cannot be made less strict (unlike the discipline)--see the Trinity--the subsequent councils developed, i.e. made more clear and explicit, the dogma, but never made it more ambiguous. The documents of Vatican II do not make the meaning more restrictive--rather allow for multiple interpretations. And we agree on the latter point. As a result, you should not blame me for opting for discussing the issue on the basis of the more restrictive statements since there are such statements in the deposit of the faith. It is really a methodological question and does not imply anything in the discussion on Vatican II.
July 24, 2007 3:50 PM
Peter Albert said...
One more issue, PJP.You keep on pressing me on giving a verdict as to who 'only' is saved. I responded earlier that while God wants to save all, and Jesus' redemption applies to all, not all apply the means of salvation! Moreover, I clearly made sure that I do not believe in the assurance of salvation the Calvinist way, and provided an entire passage of a very respectable spiritual work by Fr. Cochem in which he demonstrated the need to 'tremble' about our salvation. So we know that not all the Catholics in the pew are going to be saved.
However, you seem not to be satisfied with the answer. In that case, I must resort to a very important part of the Catholic theology--which is--mystery. Yes, indeed. The discussions between Thomists and Mollinists on predestination were never resolved and the Pope even put a stop to the debate.You seem to shift the debate from the question 'what saves'--the answer 'Catholic faith' to 'how can we know who is saved'.
The answer to this one is twofold: a. negative--wheat and tares--not all members of the visible Church will be saved, b. positive--we, the people, don't see the extent of the invisible Church, and only in heaven will we get a glimpse.
Having said all this, do you agree that the Holy Ghost brings good-willed people to the Catholic faith? And that God wills all the people to come to the Catholic Church? If you answer yes to both questions, I have no further argument.
Peter
July 24, 2007 4:03 PM
PJP said...
Peter
“I'll just posit the following fact: lay Catholics are totally entitled to assert the truths of the faith that have been infallibly declared just as the necessity of holding the Catholic faith for salvation is.”
Nice try, Peter, but we are only “totally entitled” as long as our understanding is consonant with what the Church teaches [Not what Bros Diamond or Peter Albert teaches]. We cannot have our own renditions of what a dogma means, holding to the Council of Florence as the only clear teaching on EENS, negating the Church’s understanding of her dogma. Again, there is an entire context and corpus of thought and we must see the way the Church understands EENS. You seem to bypass that corpus and hold to only a portion of it. That portion you quote from the Diamond Bros. I could quote multiple councils and popes to show that by the time of the letter on the case of Fr. Feeney, Rome had spoken definitively and this documents does not change a bit of the teaching.
I’m sure you could, Peter, but it doesn’t mean hill of beans if you hold to your present "only Florence and ex cathedra" take and refuse to submit to other “authoritative” documents.Peter this is not a race for who can quote more than the other. Don’t you see that? I have not “negated” what you have quoted by have stated that YOUR conclusions, based on your good quotes, are faulty.
You in fact negate: You “negate” baptism of desire/blood. You negate the teaching of Vatican II as authoritative. You negate the fact that we must submit to statements that do not fall under your/Diamond brothers discernment of what is “ex cathedra”. Btw, who are you to discern how much error there may be within a document that is not “ex cathedra”? You are the negating.
Of course, I agree that the Holy Spirit brings people to the Catholic Church and that God wills such return. Who would disagree with that? But again, the way that one is brought to Catholic faith goes beyond formal membership or participation in the formal act of reception of a sacrament, doesn’t it? Read Roman 2:14-16 again, Acts 10:44-48, Luke 23:42–43.
It seems like you’re pushing some stringent view of EENS which is not in accord with the entirety of Catholic thought, while “negating” other aspects of catholic thought that complement, not negate, the teaching of popes and councils that you bring forward.God bless,PJP
(...)
July 24, 2007 9:28 PM
Peter Albert said...
Dear PJP,This time I will quote you: "I’m sure you could, Peter, but it doesn’t mean hill of beans if you hold to your present "only Florence and ex cathedra" take and refuse to submit to other “authoritative” documents. Peter this is not a race for who can quote more than the other. Don’t you see that? I have not “negated” what you have quoted by have stated that YOUR conclusions, based on your good quotes, are faulty."
Since "it doesn't hill of beans" and you have "stated" that my conclusions based on my "good" quotes are "faulty", I understand that you have closed the discussion.I am sorry I took the title of your site too strictly (pun intended). It turned out that Mr. Sungenis' belief in an 'anonymous Christian' going back to Karl Rahner is more consonant with centuries of Catholic belief.
Actually, I don't hold this position against you. The issue here does not seem to be the use of sources or a form of argument... but with drawing any conclusions whatsoever from the fact that 'there was Catholic Church before 1963'.
I have not reviewed other discussions on your blog, but if the other discussions are handled as this one was--i.e. opponents are accused of dishonest use of sources and (incredibly for a blog that seemed to stress that 'there was Church before 1963) bashed for not submitting to A (single) document, then how are you going to help restore the Church? To what state?
The irony is that while I toiled to try to make myself understood and build an argument, you resorted to ad hominem shortcuts--such as 'whoever makes a link to the site of the Dimond Brothers is by definition wrong'. Well, I made a link to your blog as well as to anyone who seems to care to discuss the EENS.
You seem to have a zeal to defend the Catholic Church against people like myself, and yet you have not shown a single argument that would show why the strict interpretation of the EENS is less safe for salvation than the idea presented by Mr. Sungenis that there are 'unknown ways' in which people become Catholic even without knowing it.
PJP, I tried to show that Mr. Sungenis used sloppy argumentation and drew conclusions that discourage evangelisation--I rest my case.
Showing posts with label Sungenis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sungenis. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Why Do Non-Catholics Read the Church's Position Better Than Do the Vatican II Apologists?
Well, the debate at http://rcpstudy.blogspot.com/2007/05/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html brought some fruit. It was also a chance for me to reflect on the problem that the apologists of Vatican II have with the strict interpretation of the dogma.
Wendy said...
Well said Peter Albert. Kudos! You are obviously and learned man and well versed with the Traditions and documents (as well as Councils) of the Church. Please continue to post here. Thanks again!
July 24, 2007 10:39 AM
Peter Albert said...
Dear Wendy, no, I'm just a beginner in Catholic theology, but I've spent too much of my time searching for the truth outside of the Catholic Church to be satisfied with sloppy use of terms or easy labelling. I don't care if it's Mr. Sungenis who needs to be refuted if he fails to address key issues of salvation, instead unravelling the dogma so as to divide the Church! I'm sorry but it seems to me that many of the critics of the strict interpretation of the EENS would rather anathematize their fellow Catholics than tell the non-Catholics openly that they are lost if they do not use the Catholic Church's means of salvation.
You know, I spent the last couple of days reviewing the reactions to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith's recent explanation in the blogosphere. It is very illuminating that 90% of the non-Catholics got the message that the Cathollic Church insists on the traditional message of exclusive salvation, while 90% of the Catholic bloggers went an extra mile to disabuse their non-Catholic friends of even a hint that they should accept such a 'radical' interpretation...
In my blog http://breviary.blogspot.com I listed all the resources and blog references to EENS that I could find. I did this because I found this amazing that the necessity to convert to the Catholic Church (even if we grant that one is culpable if one rejects that option knowing this) was consistently swept under the carpet of PC terms. In my first post, I admitted that I would not have returned to the Catholic faith if I had not seen the absurdity of universal salvation--that God did not care about people's ideas about Him or that He could be worshipped any way since what mattered was either personal righteousness or even worse the believer's feelings towards God. If I had believed that God was a sentimental 'good uncle' I would not have had a clue that He required to be glorified and that my sins offended Him as the Lord.Dear Wendy, don't let anyone corner you with the label of a 'heretic' or a 'Feeneyite'--as a lay Catholic you deserve to be served the wealth of the Catholic dogma that is our standard for knowing what to believe. The Catholic dogma is immutable and just as the laws of physics, mathematics or nature are immune to any politicking, so are the infallible pronouncements of the Popes and Councils. At another forum, I was served a ridiculous (though dangerous) argument that the Council of Florence's definitions of the Church were aimed to settle contemporary issues--on those grounds for instance some claim that the Protestants are not covered by Eugene IV's statements on 'schismatics'--since those concerned only those who had separated from the Church by that time.
To reiterate Augustine, if it wasn't for the infallible pronouncements of the Church, I wouldn't know what to believe. For the above reasons, I'm not going to engage in the recent debates as to how 'conservative' the recent declarations of the Vatican are--most of them unfortunately are worded so ambiguously that they allow multiple interpretations. And I'm not saying that this tendency has started with Vatican II--in fact the 'aggiornamento' of John XXIII dates back to the liberal currents of thoughts which were well described in the Syllabus and parts of which were condemned under the terms 'modernism' and 'Americanism'.
Frankly, I might be among the few who miss the times when the fundamental questions of the Christian faith were matters of theological debates and so helped clarify the understanding of the Church. How far more concerned with the dogma was the Church at the time of Nicea, Ephesus or Chalcedon? I'm here fighting the battle for revisiting of the Church's teaching on its means of grace, but we need to seriously attack the reemerging Pelagianism and forms of Arianism.
Thank you once again, Wendy, for your kind words. I hope that this more personal intervention should serve as a sort of introduction as to why I believe what I believe.
Wendy said...
Well said Peter Albert. Kudos! You are obviously and learned man and well versed with the Traditions and documents (as well as Councils) of the Church. Please continue to post here. Thanks again!
July 24, 2007 10:39 AM
Peter Albert said...
Dear Wendy, no, I'm just a beginner in Catholic theology, but I've spent too much of my time searching for the truth outside of the Catholic Church to be satisfied with sloppy use of terms or easy labelling. I don't care if it's Mr. Sungenis who needs to be refuted if he fails to address key issues of salvation, instead unravelling the dogma so as to divide the Church! I'm sorry but it seems to me that many of the critics of the strict interpretation of the EENS would rather anathematize their fellow Catholics than tell the non-Catholics openly that they are lost if they do not use the Catholic Church's means of salvation.
You know, I spent the last couple of days reviewing the reactions to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith's recent explanation in the blogosphere. It is very illuminating that 90% of the non-Catholics got the message that the Cathollic Church insists on the traditional message of exclusive salvation, while 90% of the Catholic bloggers went an extra mile to disabuse their non-Catholic friends of even a hint that they should accept such a 'radical' interpretation...
In my blog http://breviary.blogspot.com I listed all the resources and blog references to EENS that I could find. I did this because I found this amazing that the necessity to convert to the Catholic Church (even if we grant that one is culpable if one rejects that option knowing this) was consistently swept under the carpet of PC terms. In my first post, I admitted that I would not have returned to the Catholic faith if I had not seen the absurdity of universal salvation--that God did not care about people's ideas about Him or that He could be worshipped any way since what mattered was either personal righteousness or even worse the believer's feelings towards God. If I had believed that God was a sentimental 'good uncle' I would not have had a clue that He required to be glorified and that my sins offended Him as the Lord.Dear Wendy, don't let anyone corner you with the label of a 'heretic' or a 'Feeneyite'--as a lay Catholic you deserve to be served the wealth of the Catholic dogma that is our standard for knowing what to believe. The Catholic dogma is immutable and just as the laws of physics, mathematics or nature are immune to any politicking, so are the infallible pronouncements of the Popes and Councils. At another forum, I was served a ridiculous (though dangerous) argument that the Council of Florence's definitions of the Church were aimed to settle contemporary issues--on those grounds for instance some claim that the Protestants are not covered by Eugene IV's statements on 'schismatics'--since those concerned only those who had separated from the Church by that time.
To reiterate Augustine, if it wasn't for the infallible pronouncements of the Church, I wouldn't know what to believe. For the above reasons, I'm not going to engage in the recent debates as to how 'conservative' the recent declarations of the Vatican are--most of them unfortunately are worded so ambiguously that they allow multiple interpretations. And I'm not saying that this tendency has started with Vatican II--in fact the 'aggiornamento' of John XXIII dates back to the liberal currents of thoughts which were well described in the Syllabus and parts of which were condemned under the terms 'modernism' and 'Americanism'.
Frankly, I might be among the few who miss the times when the fundamental questions of the Christian faith were matters of theological debates and so helped clarify the understanding of the Church. How far more concerned with the dogma was the Church at the time of Nicea, Ephesus or Chalcedon? I'm here fighting the battle for revisiting of the Church's teaching on its means of grace, but we need to seriously attack the reemerging Pelagianism and forms of Arianism.
Thank you once again, Wendy, for your kind words. I hope that this more personal intervention should serve as a sort of introduction as to why I believe what I believe.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Righteous Pagans and Uncertainty of Salvation
In response to my criticism of Mr. Sungenis' defense of 'baptism of desire', the host suggested that I consider Romans 2:14-16:
When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
and 1 Timothy 2:4
[God, our Saviour] will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Moreover, he asked a few questions, such as:
"What is the meaning of EENS? Or better stated, what should EENS mean for Catholics? Are card-carrying Catholics the only ones saved? Is God’s will to save (1 Tim. 2:4) limited to those who sit in the pew each Sunday at a Catholic Mass? Though the Church’s role is integral to salvation as the only venue of (grace) salvation to the world, must one be a "formal member" to be saved?Or can those, who through no fault of their own, who do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience achieve eternal salvation?"
"Do you consider yourself what is generally known (though it may be a veritable misnomer) as a Feeneyite?"
and
"Again, isn’t the personal relationship very important? Furthermore, does the Church dictate to us who is saved and who is not saved?"
Here is my response:
I would not use Romans 2:14-16 as another 'alternative gate' to salvation. Haydock patristic commentary clearly sees the conscience-driven actions of the pagans as 'dispositions' that allow God to give them 'some supernatural graces, by which they come to know, and believe, that he will reward their souls for eternity. Such, says S. Chrysostom, were the dispositions of Melchisedech, Job, Cornelius the Centurion, etc.' So here are the righteous pagans, who should be clearly distinguished from those listed in verse 12 'whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law' and Haydock explains that their guilt consists of acting 'against their reason and conscience'.
I'd like to stop at verse 12 a bit to explain my take. No, I'm not a Feeneyite since I did not gain insight into the dogma of the EENS from Fr. Feeney but from the Council of Florence. At the Council, Eugene IV not only made the famous statement:"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives;" but also expounded the reason in the next line:
"the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church"
Please note that "only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation". My concern is that the idea of 'baptism of desire' points to extraordinary means of salvation at the expense of the ordinary means,i.e. sacraments. While Fr. Feeney focused on the importance of baptism, I think the key issue is the other sacraments, in particular the Communion and penance.
In another discussion I brought up another quote from Pope Eugene IV, which elucidates the necessity of sacramental penance for salvation:Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to Hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
From the above we may infer that, while baptism takes away the stain of original sin, valid confession is needed for taking away mortal sin. To my knowledge, valid confession is not available in Judaism, Islam or Protestantism.
I'm not a Feeneyite, nor am I a Jansenist, since I do acknowledge the Church's teaching on the validity of an act of perfect contrition, the availability of grace for the true seekers of God, and the fact that invincible grace need not damn anyone. I will quote Bishop Hay who in 1787 wrote the following in his book "Sincere Christian" on the topic of invincible ignorance:
"Q. 14. But can none who are in heresy, and in invincible ignorance of the Truth be saved?A. God forbid we should say so! All the above reasons only prove that if they live and die in that state they will not be saved, and that according to the present providence they cannot be saved? but the great God is able to take them out of that state, to cure even their ignorance though invincible to them tin their present situation, to bring them to the knowledge of the True Faith, and to the communion of His Holy Church, and in consequence of that to salvation; and we further add, that if He be pleased, of his infinite mercy, to save any who are at present in invincible ignorance of the Truth, in order to act consistently with Himself, and with His Holy Word [for, indeed, God is bound by His Word; God cannot deceive us], He will undoubtedly bring them to the union of His Holy Church for that purpose, before they die."
This agrees perfectly with Romans 2:14-16. Haydock quotes John Chrysostom who believed that the righteous pagans would be granted supernatural graces NOT TO be left in invincible ignorance. Cornelius was a good example: St. Peter realized that "God is no respecter of persons but in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35) This shows that the Holy Spirit works outside the visible confines of the Church, against Quesnel, Baius and Jansenius. However, note Peter's conclusion--"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 10:47-48). Should I add that Peter needed the revelation from the Holy Ghost through Cornelius to see that pagans, despite being Jewish proselytes--'God-fearing'--should not be denied baptism if they DESIRED one?
Do I need to go into detail in 1 Timothy 2:4? It's not necessary to resort to the argument ad absurdum as to God's will only for those attending the Mass. Again, the EENS is not about the predestination--yes, God wills all to be saved, and Jesus' work applies to all, but as Haydock comments on this verse, the obstacle is not with God, but with people: "if they are not saved, it is by their own fault, by their not corresponding with the graces offered, it is because they resist the Holy Ghost" (p. 1566).
I'm not a theologian, just a layman, but just by browsing a traditional dogmatic theology manual, I noticed that the 'graces' to which Haydock refers must be so-called gratia excitans which should lead one to the recognition of sin and doing well. However, one cannot be saved without supernatural SANCTIFYING grace, which is a state! How do we receive sanctifying grace--in the Church through the absolution of mortal sins in the sacrament of penance, available through a valid priest and 'effective' only in the Catholic Church.The above brings me to the favorite charge against the EENS--that it leads to the judgment on the non-Catholics' damnation. We both know that we are not to judge, but we know what the ordinary means of salvation are since they have been used by the saints, and there are only canonized saints in the Catholic Church!
True, the Church does not tell us who is not saved--except it passes a judgment on heresy and schism through excommunication and it recognizes the saints. This is done for our own good so that we would know which way to take.
No-one knows when the Lord returns, yet we are repeatedly admonished to 'be ready'. No-one knows the number of the saved, yet we are told that 'many are called but few are chosen'. I once raised in a forum the issue of charity--since we know that as Catholics we are going to enter into heaven with greatest difficulty, and this only through application of the sacraments and assistance of the saints, how will those outside manage? Should we not alert them to the possibility of damnation, just as we should consider this. The greatest, Moses, David, St. Peter and St. Paul trembled about their salvation--contrary to impious Calvin who spoke of the assurance of perseverance of the saints! Contrary to him speaks Martin von Cochem in "Four Last Things" in the chapter on 'The Number of the Saved' (page 216 of Benziger Edition of 1899):
"Since there are so many adversaries who assail us, adversaries so crafty, so strong, so fierce, who can deem himself sure of victory? It is little short of a miracle if one escapes the clutches of foes so numerous and so formidable. Who can hope in his own strength to triumph over them? We must needs acknowledge that all who have overcome the evil enemy, the evil world, and their own evil proclivities, have been strengthened by God with his special assistance. Hence we see how toilsome and laborious work it is to win heaven; and we learn the truth of Our Lord's words, when He said 'The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away'"
Now, does this picture correspond to Mr. Sungenis' concept of a believer even unaware of being saved? How are we to believe that sacraments can be dispensed with in the process of 'crucifying our selves'? Since when 'the world' has become a safe place where the righteous may grow untarnished by the temptations? This certainly does not square with the apostolic teaching since St. Peter's first sermon in which he left no alternative to the fellow Jews but to repent and be baptized.
Hence I see no point in weakening the traditional teaching of the importance of sacraments to the spiritual life by conceding that 'somehow' it's possible to grow in relationship with God and not be called into the communion with the Catholic Church. Any cases, please?
When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
and 1 Timothy 2:4
[God, our Saviour] will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Moreover, he asked a few questions, such as:
"What is the meaning of EENS? Or better stated, what should EENS mean for Catholics? Are card-carrying Catholics the only ones saved? Is God’s will to save (1 Tim. 2:4) limited to those who sit in the pew each Sunday at a Catholic Mass? Though the Church’s role is integral to salvation as the only venue of (grace) salvation to the world, must one be a "formal member" to be saved?Or can those, who through no fault of their own, who do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience achieve eternal salvation?"
"Do you consider yourself what is generally known (though it may be a veritable misnomer) as a Feeneyite?"
and
"Again, isn’t the personal relationship very important? Furthermore, does the Church dictate to us who is saved and who is not saved?"
Here is my response:
I would not use Romans 2:14-16 as another 'alternative gate' to salvation. Haydock patristic commentary clearly sees the conscience-driven actions of the pagans as 'dispositions' that allow God to give them 'some supernatural graces, by which they come to know, and believe, that he will reward their souls for eternity. Such, says S. Chrysostom, were the dispositions of Melchisedech, Job, Cornelius the Centurion, etc.' So here are the righteous pagans, who should be clearly distinguished from those listed in verse 12 'whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law' and Haydock explains that their guilt consists of acting 'against their reason and conscience'.
I'd like to stop at verse 12 a bit to explain my take. No, I'm not a Feeneyite since I did not gain insight into the dogma of the EENS from Fr. Feeney but from the Council of Florence. At the Council, Eugene IV not only made the famous statement:"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives;" but also expounded the reason in the next line:
"the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church"
Please note that "only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation". My concern is that the idea of 'baptism of desire' points to extraordinary means of salvation at the expense of the ordinary means,i.e. sacraments. While Fr. Feeney focused on the importance of baptism, I think the key issue is the other sacraments, in particular the Communion and penance.
In another discussion I brought up another quote from Pope Eugene IV, which elucidates the necessity of sacramental penance for salvation:Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to Hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
From the above we may infer that, while baptism takes away the stain of original sin, valid confession is needed for taking away mortal sin. To my knowledge, valid confession is not available in Judaism, Islam or Protestantism.
I'm not a Feeneyite, nor am I a Jansenist, since I do acknowledge the Church's teaching on the validity of an act of perfect contrition, the availability of grace for the true seekers of God, and the fact that invincible grace need not damn anyone. I will quote Bishop Hay who in 1787 wrote the following in his book "Sincere Christian" on the topic of invincible ignorance:
"Q. 14. But can none who are in heresy, and in invincible ignorance of the Truth be saved?A. God forbid we should say so! All the above reasons only prove that if they live and die in that state they will not be saved, and that according to the present providence they cannot be saved? but the great God is able to take them out of that state, to cure even their ignorance though invincible to them tin their present situation, to bring them to the knowledge of the True Faith, and to the communion of His Holy Church, and in consequence of that to salvation; and we further add, that if He be pleased, of his infinite mercy, to save any who are at present in invincible ignorance of the Truth, in order to act consistently with Himself, and with His Holy Word [for, indeed, God is bound by His Word; God cannot deceive us], He will undoubtedly bring them to the union of His Holy Church for that purpose, before they die."
This agrees perfectly with Romans 2:14-16. Haydock quotes John Chrysostom who believed that the righteous pagans would be granted supernatural graces NOT TO be left in invincible ignorance. Cornelius was a good example: St. Peter realized that "God is no respecter of persons but in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35) This shows that the Holy Spirit works outside the visible confines of the Church, against Quesnel, Baius and Jansenius. However, note Peter's conclusion--"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 10:47-48). Should I add that Peter needed the revelation from the Holy Ghost through Cornelius to see that pagans, despite being Jewish proselytes--'God-fearing'--should not be denied baptism if they DESIRED one?
Do I need to go into detail in 1 Timothy 2:4? It's not necessary to resort to the argument ad absurdum as to God's will only for those attending the Mass. Again, the EENS is not about the predestination--yes, God wills all to be saved, and Jesus' work applies to all, but as Haydock comments on this verse, the obstacle is not with God, but with people: "if they are not saved, it is by their own fault, by their not corresponding with the graces offered, it is because they resist the Holy Ghost" (p. 1566).
I'm not a theologian, just a layman, but just by browsing a traditional dogmatic theology manual, I noticed that the 'graces' to which Haydock refers must be so-called gratia excitans which should lead one to the recognition of sin and doing well. However, one cannot be saved without supernatural SANCTIFYING grace, which is a state! How do we receive sanctifying grace--in the Church through the absolution of mortal sins in the sacrament of penance, available through a valid priest and 'effective' only in the Catholic Church.The above brings me to the favorite charge against the EENS--that it leads to the judgment on the non-Catholics' damnation. We both know that we are not to judge, but we know what the ordinary means of salvation are since they have been used by the saints, and there are only canonized saints in the Catholic Church!
True, the Church does not tell us who is not saved--except it passes a judgment on heresy and schism through excommunication and it recognizes the saints. This is done for our own good so that we would know which way to take.
No-one knows when the Lord returns, yet we are repeatedly admonished to 'be ready'. No-one knows the number of the saved, yet we are told that 'many are called but few are chosen'. I once raised in a forum the issue of charity--since we know that as Catholics we are going to enter into heaven with greatest difficulty, and this only through application of the sacraments and assistance of the saints, how will those outside manage? Should we not alert them to the possibility of damnation, just as we should consider this. The greatest, Moses, David, St. Peter and St. Paul trembled about their salvation--contrary to impious Calvin who spoke of the assurance of perseverance of the saints! Contrary to him speaks Martin von Cochem in "Four Last Things" in the chapter on 'The Number of the Saved' (page 216 of Benziger Edition of 1899):
"Since there are so many adversaries who assail us, adversaries so crafty, so strong, so fierce, who can deem himself sure of victory? It is little short of a miracle if one escapes the clutches of foes so numerous and so formidable. Who can hope in his own strength to triumph over them? We must needs acknowledge that all who have overcome the evil enemy, the evil world, and their own evil proclivities, have been strengthened by God with his special assistance. Hence we see how toilsome and laborious work it is to win heaven; and we learn the truth of Our Lord's words, when He said 'The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away'"
Now, does this picture correspond to Mr. Sungenis' concept of a believer even unaware of being saved? How are we to believe that sacraments can be dispensed with in the process of 'crucifying our selves'? Since when 'the world' has become a safe place where the righteous may grow untarnished by the temptations? This certainly does not square with the apostolic teaching since St. Peter's first sermon in which he left no alternative to the fellow Jews but to repent and be baptized.
Hence I see no point in weakening the traditional teaching of the importance of sacraments to the spiritual life by conceding that 'somehow' it's possible to grow in relationship with God and not be called into the communion with the Catholic Church. Any cases, please?
Baptism of Desire at the Council of Trent? Refuting Mr. Sungenis
The blog Recapturing Our Catholic Patrimony: Because Catholicism Existed Before 1963 features a discussion on Robert Sungenis' apology of 'baptism of desire'.
Mr. Sungenis' presentation can be viewed at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXvn0Sqam7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riUk9RqaE7E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0v0ZYIqnhk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45foZDKg7PI
I was asked by the host to explain what I meant when stating that "Mr. Sungenis made the dogma meaningless"
The intervention is posted at: http://rcpstudy.blogspot.com/2007/05/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html
For those interested in further arguments against the hypothesis of 'baptism of desire', being based on reading of the Council of Trent, are advised to follow the source of my quotations from the Council and from Pope St. Leo the Great's letter--Peter and Michael Dimonds' book Outside the Catholic Church There Is Absolutely No Salvation, available on their website http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf
July 23, 2007 9:04 AM
Peter Albert said...
I'm sorry but it's curious in the first place why Mr. Sungenis would deliver all his talk and then conclude that the Church did not define the 'desire' in 'baptism of desire' and that the whole issue had been phrased by Trent in a 'roundabout way' so that the faithful should draw their own conclusions. I'm afraid this is a pretty Protestant way of handling dogmas. In fact, when the speaker claims that 'unless' in John 3:5 should not be taken in the strict sense, I'd like to point to two sources. First, Haydock's commentary to John 3:5 says that "The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Aug. in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ's adding water , is excluded a metaphorical baptism." (page 1397).
What is worse Mr. Sungenis goes on to use the expression 'and a desire for it' of Session 6, Chap. 4, of the Council of Trent in the sense which seems to exclude the necessity of sacramental baptism even though the text of the canon continues 'as it is written' and quotes John 3:5. However, another canon (Session 7, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism) does not allow a metaphorical understanding of John 3:5:
"If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’, are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Still, Mr. Sungenis boldly proceeds that the mere addition 'or a desire for it' "puts a totally different twist" on the issue and eliminates the 'physical' aspect. Is this a safe argument to present to the faithful? Far from it when one considers another quote from Session 6, Chap. 7 on the Causes of Justification:
"The causes of this Justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ… the efficient cause is truly a merciful God… the meritorious cause is His most beloved and only‐begotten Son… the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without faith no one is ever justified… This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for faith which bestows life eternal…"
Wouldn't it also be nice if Mr. Sungenis mentioned that in general agreement of the theologians the baptism of desire is not a form of the sacrament of baptism? And he would be wise to consider the unity of the baptism as indicated by Pope St. Leo the Great who, in the dogmatic letter to Flavian, mentioned: "the spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism" and stated that "these three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others."
The above quote should alert to the likelihood of reading Sess. 6, Chap. 4 in the meaning that "justification of the impious ... cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it" so that BOTH water AND desire are necessary for the baptism to effect the justification.
I am in general wondering what the point of Mr. Sungenis' lecture is in the congregation of Catholics? Does it reinforce the believers' faith in the mission of the Church? Hardly. Would a non-Catholic stepping into the congregation be impelled to convert to the Catholic Church? Given Mr. Sungenis' emphasis on the 'second option' -- I doubt it.
I would rather expect Mr. Sungenis to point out why 'there is no salvation outside the Church', to explain the significance of the dogma to the faithful and non-Catholics. Mr. Sungenis places too much emphasis on the individual's personal relationship with God on the path of salvation, and fails to elaborate the initial topic of the unique 'power of the keys' to the Church.
Finally, is it edifying for the faith to opt for a more 'liberal' or ambiguous reading of the Councils and Popes when there is a probable reading that is more 'restrictive'? I leave this judgment to you. For the above reasons, I must stick to my original assertion that Mr. Sungenis 'made the dogma meaningless'.However the irony is that by Mr. Sungenis' own judgment he himself may be the victim of 'invincible ignorance' and that would not matter in assessing his theological argument a bit since he had the best of intentions, right?
Mr. Sungenis' presentation can be viewed at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXvn0Sqam7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riUk9RqaE7E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0v0ZYIqnhk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45foZDKg7PI
I was asked by the host to explain what I meant when stating that "Mr. Sungenis made the dogma meaningless"
The intervention is posted at: http://rcpstudy.blogspot.com/2007/05/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html
For those interested in further arguments against the hypothesis of 'baptism of desire', being based on reading of the Council of Trent, are advised to follow the source of my quotations from the Council and from Pope St. Leo the Great's letter--Peter and Michael Dimonds' book Outside the Catholic Church There Is Absolutely No Salvation, available on their website http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf
July 23, 2007 9:04 AM
Peter Albert said...
I'm sorry but it's curious in the first place why Mr. Sungenis would deliver all his talk and then conclude that the Church did not define the 'desire' in 'baptism of desire' and that the whole issue had been phrased by Trent in a 'roundabout way' so that the faithful should draw their own conclusions. I'm afraid this is a pretty Protestant way of handling dogmas. In fact, when the speaker claims that 'unless' in John 3:5 should not be taken in the strict sense, I'd like to point to two sources. First, Haydock's commentary to John 3:5 says that "The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Aug. in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ's adding water , is excluded a metaphorical baptism." (page 1397).
What is worse Mr. Sungenis goes on to use the expression 'and a desire for it' of Session 6, Chap. 4, of the Council of Trent in the sense which seems to exclude the necessity of sacramental baptism even though the text of the canon continues 'as it is written' and quotes John 3:5. However, another canon (Session 7, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism) does not allow a metaphorical understanding of John 3:5:
"If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’, are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Still, Mr. Sungenis boldly proceeds that the mere addition 'or a desire for it' "puts a totally different twist" on the issue and eliminates the 'physical' aspect. Is this a safe argument to present to the faithful? Far from it when one considers another quote from Session 6, Chap. 7 on the Causes of Justification:
"The causes of this Justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ… the efficient cause is truly a merciful God… the meritorious cause is His most beloved and only‐begotten Son… the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without faith no one is ever justified… This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for faith which bestows life eternal…"
Wouldn't it also be nice if Mr. Sungenis mentioned that in general agreement of the theologians the baptism of desire is not a form of the sacrament of baptism? And he would be wise to consider the unity of the baptism as indicated by Pope St. Leo the Great who, in the dogmatic letter to Flavian, mentioned: "the spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism" and stated that "these three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others."
The above quote should alert to the likelihood of reading Sess. 6, Chap. 4 in the meaning that "justification of the impious ... cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it" so that BOTH water AND desire are necessary for the baptism to effect the justification.
I am in general wondering what the point of Mr. Sungenis' lecture is in the congregation of Catholics? Does it reinforce the believers' faith in the mission of the Church? Hardly. Would a non-Catholic stepping into the congregation be impelled to convert to the Catholic Church? Given Mr. Sungenis' emphasis on the 'second option' -- I doubt it.
I would rather expect Mr. Sungenis to point out why 'there is no salvation outside the Church', to explain the significance of the dogma to the faithful and non-Catholics. Mr. Sungenis places too much emphasis on the individual's personal relationship with God on the path of salvation, and fails to elaborate the initial topic of the unique 'power of the keys' to the Church.
Finally, is it edifying for the faith to opt for a more 'liberal' or ambiguous reading of the Councils and Popes when there is a probable reading that is more 'restrictive'? I leave this judgment to you. For the above reasons, I must stick to my original assertion that Mr. Sungenis 'made the dogma meaningless'.However the irony is that by Mr. Sungenis' own judgment he himself may be the victim of 'invincible ignorance' and that would not matter in assessing his theological argument a bit since he had the best of intentions, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)