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 apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
How to Use the Magisterium? Responding to a Critique
Predictably, the discussion with PJP shifted to the question of the validity of Vatican II documents and actually my first post "Where Is the Catholic Church" got quoted! Here follows the continuation of my exchange with the host of the blog Recapturing the Catholic Patrimony:
PJP said...
In your comments you question the validity of baptism of desire (which lies within the tradition of the Church as form of the sacrament of baptism) and you read/interpret the Council of Florence out of context (out of the corpus of Catholic thought and interpretation of the EENS dogma), placing such a statement above later statements reiterating EENS. It seems you have placed yourself as the arbiter and interpreter of the magisterium. This is quite dangerous, and I’m sincerely concerned for you.
You seem to frequently employ the term “exclusive salvation” as some “traditional message” or teaching of the Church. But is your rendition of exclusivism truly an aspect of Catholic Tradition? What do you mean by such a term? You state on your blog: “Let's face it: there are only two alternatives when it comes to salvation--either God accepts all the people of good will regardless of the faith they profess about Him or He accepts only those who hold the one acceptable faith. So it all comes down to the choice between universal salvation or exclusive salvation.” Peter Albert, this is what is known as a false dichotomy – a false option set up which is not consonant with Catholic thought. You do this again and again in your comments, making the salvation matter a black and white issue. Yes, ALL salvation come to the world through the Catholic Church (all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body, CCC 846), but the grace of salvation which emanates from the Church reaches people in both ordinary (sacraments) and extraordinary (ways unknown) means. The latter is unknown to us as noted in the Catechism no. 848. But in my estimation you probably don’t accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church…
Furthermore, you tell Wendy that she deserves to be “served the wealth of Catholic dogma.” I agree with you that all Catholics need to know and understand Catholic dogma and that much of it has been twisted or hidden today. Yet WHO is to do the serving? Are we to serve ourselves or are we to look to those God has placed in places of authority – the Magisterium (See. Matt. 23)? I’m not pushing for magisterial positivism (“Well, they say so, so it must be true.”), for I encourage a critical study of the faith in the context of Tradition, examining the current crisis we are in, but you’re taking the EENS matter into your own hands, divorcing in from the living magisterium of Christ’s Church.
What do you think about the Holy Office’s response to the Feeney issue as posted by Matt above? This is pre-Vatican II. Do you accept it as authoritative? You accept the Council of Florence as authoritative but you deny the same level of authority to Vatican II. Why is that?
On your blog you state: “The church of the Vatican II then is no longer the safe haven of salvation.” Yet you never answer the title of the post, “Where is the Catholic Church?” Where is it, Peter?
Peter, you also misinterpret Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio. It does not say that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church contra the sacred dogma of faith. It simply says that they are elements of the Church are found in protestant and orthodox communities and those Catholic elements can lead one to salvation. Hence, the elements are Catholic and connected to the one Mystical Body of Christ, noting that salvation still comes from the One True Church, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. It seems like you’re looking for contradictions that aren’t there.
You fail to quote the next section of UR no. 3 which clarifies the earlier section you take out of context. Here is the clarification:
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college ALONE, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be FULLY incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.
This blog does not preach universal salvation or your stringent idea of exclusivism, but it does recognize the entire Magisterium of the Church. You are wrenching things out of context, Peter, and this has led you to come to conclusions that are not consonant with the Faith of our Fathers.
All the best in Christ,
PJP
PS: On a last note, I saw that you link to the Holy Family Monastery of the Diamond Brothers. Please beware. Run away as fast as you can. These guys are in grave and obstinate error.
July 24, 2007 2:11 PM
Peter Albert said...
Dear PJP,
Unless we argue issues, we will call names--you managed to call the Dimonds 'dangerous' while earlier you stated that 'certainly' Sungenis believes in the necessity of sacrament of baptism.
Dear PJP, you imply that I distort the magisterium by imputing me the position of 'an arbiter', and yet note that I responded to each of your questions and theses (such as Romans 2:14-16 or 1 Timothy 2:4) by reference to traditional Catholic sources.
And I'll do the same to tackle the infamous Protocol 122/49, Suprema haec sacra. Well-known theologian of the time (and supporter of the position expressed in the Protocol) John (sic! should read Joseph) Clifford Fenton said the following on the relevance of the letter to the dogma of EENS in his book The Catholic Church and Salvation, published in 1958 (p. 103):
"This letter, known as Suprema haec sacra [Protocol 122/49], ... is an authoritative, though obviously not infallible document. That is to say, the teachings in Suprema haec sacra are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular document."
I agree with one point in the Suprema haec sacra:
"the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is nosalvation outside the Church. However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it.”
Since you imply that I am prejudiced against the recent pronouncements on EENS, I'll supply the 20-th century Pope, Pius XII's' statements:
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laverof regeneration and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration."
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (#27), 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter ofa few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the RomanCatholic Church are one and the same. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation."
Do you see, PJP, where I got the expression with which to address Mr. Sungenis' presentation? However, since I could be branded a self-styled 'arbiter' of the magisterium, I'll leave those quotes up there without a comment for you to figure out whether in fact Pius XII condemned the heresy of Feeneyism.
Let me address another of your concerns up front. You are asserting that the choice I posit 'either God accepts all the people of good will regardless of the faith they profess about Him or He accepts only those who hold the one acceptable faith' is a false dichotomy. Again, I must resort to a quote that actually supports only one alternative of the two:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
This reiterates the Athanasian Creed, and is the unchanging expression of the Catholic faith.I hope that I'll get fair treatment of the quotes I put up for defence of my position and that you state your position as well instead of warning of the danger of certain doctrines or people.Peter
July 24, 2007 2:45 PM
PJP said...
In your comments you question the validity of baptism of desire (which lies within the tradition of the Church as form of the sacrament of baptism) and you read/interpret the Council of Florence out of context (out of the corpus of Catholic thought and interpretation of the EENS dogma), placing such a statement above later statements reiterating EENS. It seems you have placed yourself as the arbiter and interpreter of the magisterium. This is quite dangerous, and I’m sincerely concerned for you.
You seem to frequently employ the term “exclusive salvation” as some “traditional message” or teaching of the Church. But is your rendition of exclusivism truly an aspect of Catholic Tradition? What do you mean by such a term? You state on your blog: “Let's face it: there are only two alternatives when it comes to salvation--either God accepts all the people of good will regardless of the faith they profess about Him or He accepts only those who hold the one acceptable faith. So it all comes down to the choice between universal salvation or exclusive salvation.” Peter Albert, this is what is known as a false dichotomy – a false option set up which is not consonant with Catholic thought. You do this again and again in your comments, making the salvation matter a black and white issue. Yes, ALL salvation come to the world through the Catholic Church (all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body, CCC 846), but the grace of salvation which emanates from the Church reaches people in both ordinary (sacraments) and extraordinary (ways unknown) means. The latter is unknown to us as noted in the Catechism no. 848. But in my estimation you probably don’t accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church…
Furthermore, you tell Wendy that she deserves to be “served the wealth of Catholic dogma.” I agree with you that all Catholics need to know and understand Catholic dogma and that much of it has been twisted or hidden today. Yet WHO is to do the serving? Are we to serve ourselves or are we to look to those God has placed in places of authority – the Magisterium (See. Matt. 23)? I’m not pushing for magisterial positivism (“Well, they say so, so it must be true.”), for I encourage a critical study of the faith in the context of Tradition, examining the current crisis we are in, but you’re taking the EENS matter into your own hands, divorcing in from the living magisterium of Christ’s Church.
What do you think about the Holy Office’s response to the Feeney issue as posted by Matt above? This is pre-Vatican II. Do you accept it as authoritative? You accept the Council of Florence as authoritative but you deny the same level of authority to Vatican II. Why is that?
On your blog you state: “The church of the Vatican II then is no longer the safe haven of salvation.” Yet you never answer the title of the post, “Where is the Catholic Church?” Where is it, Peter?
Peter, you also misinterpret Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio. It does not say that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church contra the sacred dogma of faith. It simply says that they are elements of the Church are found in protestant and orthodox communities and those Catholic elements can lead one to salvation. Hence, the elements are Catholic and connected to the one Mystical Body of Christ, noting that salvation still comes from the One True Church, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. It seems like you’re looking for contradictions that aren’t there.
You fail to quote the next section of UR no. 3 which clarifies the earlier section you take out of context. Here is the clarification:
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college ALONE, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be FULLY incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.
This blog does not preach universal salvation or your stringent idea of exclusivism, but it does recognize the entire Magisterium of the Church. You are wrenching things out of context, Peter, and this has led you to come to conclusions that are not consonant with the Faith of our Fathers.
All the best in Christ,
PJP
PS: On a last note, I saw that you link to the Holy Family Monastery of the Diamond Brothers. Please beware. Run away as fast as you can. These guys are in grave and obstinate error.
July 24, 2007 2:11 PM
Peter Albert said...
Dear PJP,
Unless we argue issues, we will call names--you managed to call the Dimonds 'dangerous' while earlier you stated that 'certainly' Sungenis believes in the necessity of sacrament of baptism.
Dear PJP, you imply that I distort the magisterium by imputing me the position of 'an arbiter', and yet note that I responded to each of your questions and theses (such as Romans 2:14-16 or 1 Timothy 2:4) by reference to traditional Catholic sources.
And I'll do the same to tackle the infamous Protocol 122/49, Suprema haec sacra. Well-known theologian of the time (and supporter of the position expressed in the Protocol) John (sic! should read Joseph) Clifford Fenton said the following on the relevance of the letter to the dogma of EENS in his book The Catholic Church and Salvation, published in 1958 (p. 103):
"This letter, known as Suprema haec sacra [Protocol 122/49], ... is an authoritative, though obviously not infallible document. That is to say, the teachings in Suprema haec sacra are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular document."
I agree with one point in the Suprema haec sacra:
"the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is nosalvation outside the Church. However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it.”
Since you imply that I am prejudiced against the recent pronouncements on EENS, I'll supply the 20-th century Pope, Pius XII's' statements:
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laverof regeneration and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration."
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (#27), 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter ofa few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the RomanCatholic Church are one and the same. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation."
Do you see, PJP, where I got the expression with which to address Mr. Sungenis' presentation? However, since I could be branded a self-styled 'arbiter' of the magisterium, I'll leave those quotes up there without a comment for you to figure out whether in fact Pius XII condemned the heresy of Feeneyism.
Let me address another of your concerns up front. You are asserting that the choice I posit 'either God accepts all the people of good will regardless of the faith they profess about Him or He accepts only those who hold the one acceptable faith' is a false dichotomy. Again, I must resort to a quote that actually supports only one alternative of the two:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
This reiterates the Athanasian Creed, and is the unchanging expression of the Catholic faith.I hope that I'll get fair treatment of the quotes I put up for defence of my position and that you state your position as well instead of warning of the danger of certain doctrines or people.Peter
July 24, 2007 2:45 PM
Monday, July 23, 2007
Charity Compels Us to Warn Non-Catholics Against Staying Outside of the Church
This is another part of the debate that I held with PJP, the host of the blog Recapturing Our Catholic Patrimony: Because Catholicism Existed Before 1963. It refers to the earlier post on this blog Is It Necessary to Convert to the Catholic Church To Be Saved?
The entire exchange can be found at:
http://rcpstudy.blogspot.com/2007/05/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html
Peter Albert said...
Responding to your question whether I believe that the document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church" 'truly represents the Catholic and Apostolic faith', I'd like to make two caveats:
a) the document does not claim infallibility in itself (i.e. it does not elucidate the deposit of the faith in a new fashion, but instead rests on the declarations of Vatican II, as I will show,
b) its relevance for the Catholic faithful depends on the extent to which it conforms to the principle, stated by John XXIII in his opening Address to the Vatican II council. By the way, this quote is taken from the very document I'm discussing here (though it's tucked into a footnote so it might be a fine-print caveat :)):
"The deposit of faith itself and the truths contained in our venerable doctrine are one thing, but the manner in which they are annunciated is another, provided that the same fundamental sense and meaning is maintained."
I will be blunt. I don't have half as much problem with the expression that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church (provided that we understand that the Catholic Church indeed was, is, and will be the Church of Christ) as with the following statement that this document quotes verbatim from the Unitatis redintegratio decree of the Vatican II council:
"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church".
John XXIII's opening address stresses that no council may go contrary to the deposit of the faith, as expressed in the infallible statements of the popes and earlier councils approved by the popes. Does the Unitatis redintegratio decree only express but not distort the meaning of the deposit of the faith as stated in Eugene IV's infallible statement that I quoted in my earlier response?
"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; that 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."
Of course, since according to your blog's title, Catholicism existed before 1963, I should be able to reconcile the Council of Florence with the Unitatis redintegratio. I could try and state the orthodox dogma that the Holy Ghost operates outside the Catholic Church but that only the Catholic Church has the effective sacraments and thus is God's instrument of salvation. But this is not how it was understood not by laymen, but by key figures in the post-Council drive for ecumenism. I cite these just as examples:
In an interview given to the Italian newspaper Adista, Cardinal Walter Kasper, Prefect of Vatican Council for Promoting Christian Unity, stated that since Vatican II "we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a 'return', by which the others would 'be converted' and return to being Catholics." (February 26, 2001)
Cardinal Ratzinger directly contradicted Eugene IV's unequivocal statement that the Jews would not be saved as long as they remained outside the Catholic Church when he expressed his belief in an interview to the Zenit agency that "a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved." (September 5, 2000)
Finally, John Paul II openly denied the necessity of entering the Catholic Church for salvation since, in his words: "The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church" (Redemptoris Missio #10, December 7, 1990).
What should I make of these as a lay Catholic? Should I stop preaching to the Jews since they 'don't need to acknowledge Christ as the Son of God', or should I give up on converting the Eastern Orthodox since they need not 'return to being Catholics'?
No. I should do neither of these things. Is it because I pride myself like a Pharisee that I am not 'one of those people'? No--this would condemn me and give a scandal to those around me. Is it because I know they will be lost if I do not seek to convert them? No, God might apply supernatural means. It is because I should be charitable and not keep the treasure of Catholic faith just to myself, which is the only sure (though difficult) way, the only one that has been guaranteed that would fail not (Matthew 16:18).
Do I glee over the sorry state of the Church, in which for decades the pastors have preferred to be 'ecumenical' rather than point in truth the danger of remaining outside the Church, the ark of salvation? No, I am most grieved.
Am I hopeful that the truth of the 'narrow gate' and the necessity to submit to the Roman pontiff (Unam Sanctam bull of Boniface VIII) is going to awaken many non-Catholics to the reflection and to return to the Catholic Church? Yes, I am!
I am reminded daily by St. Paul that "charity rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth" and that "there remain faith, hope, charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity" (1 Corinthians 13:6.13)
Recapitulating, the problem of many Vatican II statements is not even for the Catholics who know the theology and can see through the ambiguities and fuzzy language thanks to their sensus catholicus. The real problem is that some people who might convert if they were faced with the requirement to do so, have been lulled into believing that they might just as well stay outside. How many of those could die in their mortal sins without getting absolved?
I feel I can only respond by referring to this terrible verse of Ezekiel that places the responsibility on us who already know where the medicine is:
"But if thou give warning to the wicked, and he be not converted from his wickedness, and from his evil way: he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul. (...) But if thou warn the just man, that the just may not sin, and he doth not sin: living he shall live, because thou hast warned him, and thou hast delivered thy soul." (Ezekiel 3:19.21)
So, all in all, we don't have the choice but warn both the wicked and the just that they may not sin. And we know how we may be in and remain in sanctifying grace--it is a gift from God that He has given his Church "the instrument of salvation". And so there is "one faith, one church, one baptism for the salvation of all."
The entire exchange can be found at:
http://rcpstudy.blogspot.com/2007/05/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html
Peter Albert said...
Responding to your question whether I believe that the document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church" 'truly represents the Catholic and Apostolic faith', I'd like to make two caveats:
a) the document does not claim infallibility in itself (i.e. it does not elucidate the deposit of the faith in a new fashion, but instead rests on the declarations of Vatican II, as I will show,
b) its relevance for the Catholic faithful depends on the extent to which it conforms to the principle, stated by John XXIII in his opening Address to the Vatican II council. By the way, this quote is taken from the very document I'm discussing here (though it's tucked into a footnote so it might be a fine-print caveat :)):
"The deposit of faith itself and the truths contained in our venerable doctrine are one thing, but the manner in which they are annunciated is another, provided that the same fundamental sense and meaning is maintained."
I will be blunt. I don't have half as much problem with the expression that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church (provided that we understand that the Catholic Church indeed was, is, and will be the Church of Christ) as with the following statement that this document quotes verbatim from the Unitatis redintegratio decree of the Vatican II council:
"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church".
John XXIII's opening address stresses that no council may go contrary to the deposit of the faith, as expressed in the infallible statements of the popes and earlier councils approved by the popes. Does the Unitatis redintegratio decree only express but not distort the meaning of the deposit of the faith as stated in Eugene IV's infallible statement that I quoted in my earlier response?
"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; that 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."
Of course, since according to your blog's title, Catholicism existed before 1963, I should be able to reconcile the Council of Florence with the Unitatis redintegratio. I could try and state the orthodox dogma that the Holy Ghost operates outside the Catholic Church but that only the Catholic Church has the effective sacraments and thus is God's instrument of salvation. But this is not how it was understood not by laymen, but by key figures in the post-Council drive for ecumenism. I cite these just as examples:
In an interview given to the Italian newspaper Adista, Cardinal Walter Kasper, Prefect of Vatican Council for Promoting Christian Unity, stated that since Vatican II "we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a 'return', by which the others would 'be converted' and return to being Catholics." (February 26, 2001)
Cardinal Ratzinger directly contradicted Eugene IV's unequivocal statement that the Jews would not be saved as long as they remained outside the Catholic Church when he expressed his belief in an interview to the Zenit agency that "a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved." (September 5, 2000)
Finally, John Paul II openly denied the necessity of entering the Catholic Church for salvation since, in his words: "The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church" (Redemptoris Missio #10, December 7, 1990).
What should I make of these as a lay Catholic? Should I stop preaching to the Jews since they 'don't need to acknowledge Christ as the Son of God', or should I give up on converting the Eastern Orthodox since they need not 'return to being Catholics'?
No. I should do neither of these things. Is it because I pride myself like a Pharisee that I am not 'one of those people'? No--this would condemn me and give a scandal to those around me. Is it because I know they will be lost if I do not seek to convert them? No, God might apply supernatural means. It is because I should be charitable and not keep the treasure of Catholic faith just to myself, which is the only sure (though difficult) way, the only one that has been guaranteed that would fail not (Matthew 16:18).
Do I glee over the sorry state of the Church, in which for decades the pastors have preferred to be 'ecumenical' rather than point in truth the danger of remaining outside the Church, the ark of salvation? No, I am most grieved.
Am I hopeful that the truth of the 'narrow gate' and the necessity to submit to the Roman pontiff (Unam Sanctam bull of Boniface VIII) is going to awaken many non-Catholics to the reflection and to return to the Catholic Church? Yes, I am!
I am reminded daily by St. Paul that "charity rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth" and that "there remain faith, hope, charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity" (1 Corinthians 13:6.13)
Recapitulating, the problem of many Vatican II statements is not even for the Catholics who know the theology and can see through the ambiguities and fuzzy language thanks to their sensus catholicus. The real problem is that some people who might convert if they were faced with the requirement to do so, have been lulled into believing that they might just as well stay outside. How many of those could die in their mortal sins without getting absolved?
I feel I can only respond by referring to this terrible verse of Ezekiel that places the responsibility on us who already know where the medicine is:
"But if thou give warning to the wicked, and he be not converted from his wickedness, and from his evil way: he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul. (...) But if thou warn the just man, that the just may not sin, and he doth not sin: living he shall live, because thou hast warned him, and thou hast delivered thy soul." (Ezekiel 3:19.21)
So, all in all, we don't have the choice but warn both the wicked and the just that they may not sin. And we know how we may be in and remain in sanctifying grace--it is a gift from God that He has given his Church "the instrument of salvation". And so there is "one faith, one church, one baptism for the salvation of all."
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?
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Debating the Salvation of non-Catholics and Catholic Charity Towards Them
Here is the exchange that I had with a certain Theocoid (with additional intervention of another paricipant). The entire debate and the original post can be found at Father Martin Fox's Bonfire of the Vanities blog at:
http://frmartinfox.blogspot.com/2007/07/post-for-feeneyites.html
"July 14, 2007
Peter Albert said...
Well, before Fr. Feeney, there was Pope Eugene IV who said in 1441:"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; that 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."
This not only asserts the need to be united to the Church before death but also affirms that valid sacraments are effective for salvation only "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church". And if one jumps to the conclusion that non-Catholics are damned for staying outside the church, here's Bishop George Hay, speaking on the subject in 1787:
"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."
The necessity of being converted to the Catholic Church is demonstrated by the continuous missionary activity of the Church in the newly-discovered lands of America--if the Native Americans could be saved in their religions, why did missionaries go to such lengths to convert them?
(...)
July 14, 2007
Theocoid said...
As I mentioned in my comment, Peter Albert, that position clearly dismisses what has been said in total concerning the matter. First, you have to consider the historical climate in which that statement was made (the various formal heretics that were sowing discord and causing schism, that Jews simply could not deny the difference betwen Christianity and Judaism, hence chose to reject Christ and his Church, and that virtually no one in Christendom grew up in ignorance of the authority of the Church). In addition, you have to differentiate between those who cause schism and those who are unwittingly swayed by them, those who are formal heretics and those who are unknowingly material heretics (that is, grew up with no knowledge of Catholic authority), and those who would choose to do Christ's will given the choice and the understanding of its necessity. Also, you have to disregard that the Councils of Florence and Trent validated the baptism of those who were baptized even by pagans or heretics. As the current teaching of the Church states, baptism joins these people to the Church. And finally, you have to throw out the traditional belief in the salvation of righteous pagans (not to mention the OT patriarchs) held by many of the early Church fathers and doctors of the Church.
Bishop Hay was not speaking in an extraordinary exercise of the magisterium. He was teaching through his ordinary magisterial authority. Unless you are also going to give creedence to all other bishops speaking on that subject at the time, you cannot hold up his claim as being the proper interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Clearly, the magisterium has made clear since that time that such an interpretation is not the only acceptable theological opinion. The move against Fr. Feeney, although it did not condemn outright the interpretation as heretical, clearly discouraged that inerpretation. The latest pronouncements of the Church simply do not square with Bishop Hay's words.
The words of a handful of theologians in a particularly bitter period in Catholic history do not speak for the totality of Catholic doctrine, nor can they account for God's means or His mercy.For more information, see http://www.catholicfiles.com/againstfeeneyism.html
(...)
July 15, 2007
Peter Albert said...
Dear theocoid, I appreciate you took the time to analyze the arguments I have brought forward. I'm not going to discuss the question of the permanence of the dogma although it is disturbing that you could easily conclude that the 'current' teaching invalidates the ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope.
However, two important issues arise. First, you are advancing a number of reasons why Eugene IV should have made such a pronouncement. Let me quote him at the Council of Florence for the context:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Now, the above was not merely a response to specific heresies or clarification of some murky theological detail. In fact, it is a word-for-word assertion of the Athanasian Creed that can be found in the Prime hour of the traditional Roman breviary (all the way to 1962).
So to recapitulate unless one holds the two fundamental truths of the Catholic faith, i.e. the Trinity and Incarnation, one cannot be saved. This strict position did not spring up in the 15th century but may be easily seen in the first millennium when the councils placed anathemas on those who denied the dogma of the Trinity.
Secondly, bishop Hay need not be infallible to draw inference from the deposit of the faith. I believe you missed the point that was raised at the beggining of my earlier post. The question is not whether invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation (it needn't be), but how one may be in the state of sanctifying grace if one does not partake of sacraments. True, baptism of heretics and schismatics may be valid (against the position of Augustine), but how does one become justified with God outside the Catholic Church if:
-- Leo XIII did not accept the validity of Anglican orders,
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “… of Our own motion and certain knowledge We pronounce and declare that Ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and utterly void.”
-- the power of the keys is necessary for administering valid confession (Council of Trent).
Can anyone show me any infallible statements since then that would either approve of the Anglican rites or allow for valid confession in communities without Apostolic Succession? Vatican II? John Paul II? Benedict XVI? Any such statements?
Concluding with the oft-quoted Euguene IV and the Council of Florence:
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 (or perfect contrition, which is a gift from God) is needed for taking away mortal sin. To my knowledge, valid confession is not available in Judaism, Islam or Protestantism.
Dear theocoid and other contributors: I have a general question for you--is it truly charitable to assure non-Catholics of their salvation or claim ignorance as to their fate if they die in mortal sin? This smacks of hipocrisy since we know that as Catholics we will surely not be saved if we die in mortal sin. I hope, dad29, that you are not saying "We ain't smart enough to know" what will happen if we die in mortal sin. In case we don't know, the Gospel and letters of St. Paul may enlighten us easily.
There are a number of places in the Scripture where the prophets (starting with Noah and Lot, Moses all the way to John the Baptist) announced in no ambiguous terms to the neighbors and strangers alike that unless they repented and made use of God's terms of salvation (e.g. the ark, Passover, baptism) they would be lost. And as we know all this has been written for our education.In Christo,Peter Albert
July 16, 2007
Patrick said...
It's entertaining to think that what this boils down to is our declaration of specific persons in hell...
The Church has never (and will never) abrogate its Divine mandate to bring the entirety of humanity to know Christ in the Catholic Church through the sacraments. Obviously, the point of all such topics is individual conversion. (Perhaps a different topic, but people incorrectly denounce Dignatatis Humanae as being anti-missionary, when rather is merely states that a forced conversion is not really a conversion at all!) Those disagreeing with Fr. Feeney have no right to say that it is better for some to remain outside Church, as this directly contradicts Church teaching.
As members of the Catholic Church, we really have only one thing to concern ourselves with with respect to those outside the physical boundaries of the Church, and that is evangelization and our efforts at bringing about their conversion.
Our missionary outreach is truly an act of charity insofar as we are helping people attain what Christ desires for them--namely, incorporation and participation in the Mystical Body. It's not good enough to desire merely that someone not goes to hell; we must desire that they love God. (Take for example, the difference between perfect and imperfect contrition.)
So perhaps the Feeneyites are right, and only those physically in the Catholic Church are saved, or perhaps they are wrong, and God can work extraordinarily with respect to certain circumstances and people... Neither changes our mandate as those in the Church: namely to be evangelistic and missionary.
What does it all boil down to? Simply, the state of those souls not affected by our actions to the extent necessary for conversion. I don't see this as a point worth fighting over; the Church was intended to be the salvation of all peoples, and all within the Church have the perogative to spread the word of God to those who don't know it through means that are efficacious. Perhaps some will be converted by being reminded of the very real possibility of their souls spending eternity in hell as they remain outside of the effects of the sacraments, while others will be converted by the desire to have the authentic faith, hope, and charity present only in the Church.
July 16, 2007
Theocoid said...
You see, here is where the Feenyites play the whole changing dogma card. That's not what happened. Dogma has not changed. The interpretation you have put on the 15th-century formulation is simply wrong. Either that, or the new pronoucements in Lumen Gentium and the Catechism are wrong, which means the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church. I don't accept the latter, so I have to believe the former.
In addition, we still have an obligation to evanglize non-Catholics. Even though they might have to possibility of salvation because of the one sacrament they have received, they do not have the fullness of the means salvation. You're correct. It is not charitable to let people live in error, but that is hardly the same as saying that they have no chance of salvation.
July 16, 2007
Peter Albert said...
Dear theocoid, please note that the remark on the permanence of the dogma was an aside, and was not directly pertinent to the argument. Of course, the gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Church and of course the Church in heaven and on earth is in agreement on the dogma as we believe in the unity of the Church. So no disagreement here!
Also I'm glad that charity does not divide us as all Catholics ought to care for the salvation of their non-Catholic neighbors.
What remains to be seen, however, is how a baptized Christian may remain in the state of sanctifying grace without valid confession. It really comes down to the key controversy of Luther and Calvin vs. Trent -- does God require us to be sanctified through the confession of mortal sins to a valid priest or does 'faith alone' justify 'juridically' with God?
Of course, I'm not a Jansenist to believe that grace is not present outside the Catholic Church, and everyone on the forum seems to agree that the refusal to join the Catholic Church once one is aware of the duty to do so is sinful. In essence, one should then read the Lumen Gentium in a restrictive sense--the Holy Spirit operates outside the Church, grace is given to sinners to repent. But one should not read it in the sense that a Talmudic Jew who denies Jesus Christ or a Protestant who refuses the primacy of the Pope is free to do so and their beliefs are indifferent to their salvation.
If we speak of 'righteous pagans' then we assume that they not only follow their conscience but that they seek God. In that case, the Gospel promises that they will be given the Holy Spirit who will guide them into 'all things'. Some have appealed to God's mercy--indeed God is merciful enough to grant as much grace as is necessary for one to come to the fulness of salvation AS LONG AS ONE COOPERATES WITH THE GRACE ALREADY GRANTED.
2 Tim. 4:16 states that God wishes all to be saved. This does not mean that all WILL be saved (free will) but certainly that also does not mean that God will leave a 'righteous pagan' in the darkness of error if the person is sincere.
I hope this will show that a Catholic serious about extra ecclesiam nulla sallus need not lack in charity. Let us pray for the conversion of those still in the bondage of sin!
Peter Albert"
http://frmartinfox.blogspot.com/2007/07/post-for-feeneyites.html
"July 14, 2007
Peter Albert said...
Well, before Fr. Feeney, there was Pope Eugene IV who said in 1441:"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; that 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."
This not only asserts the need to be united to the Church before death but also affirms that valid sacraments are effective for salvation only "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church". And if one jumps to the conclusion that non-Catholics are damned for staying outside the church, here's Bishop George Hay, speaking on the subject in 1787:
"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."
The necessity of being converted to the Catholic Church is demonstrated by the continuous missionary activity of the Church in the newly-discovered lands of America--if the Native Americans could be saved in their religions, why did missionaries go to such lengths to convert them?
(...)
July 14, 2007
Theocoid said...
As I mentioned in my comment, Peter Albert, that position clearly dismisses what has been said in total concerning the matter. First, you have to consider the historical climate in which that statement was made (the various formal heretics that were sowing discord and causing schism, that Jews simply could not deny the difference betwen Christianity and Judaism, hence chose to reject Christ and his Church, and that virtually no one in Christendom grew up in ignorance of the authority of the Church). In addition, you have to differentiate between those who cause schism and those who are unwittingly swayed by them, those who are formal heretics and those who are unknowingly material heretics (that is, grew up with no knowledge of Catholic authority), and those who would choose to do Christ's will given the choice and the understanding of its necessity. Also, you have to disregard that the Councils of Florence and Trent validated the baptism of those who were baptized even by pagans or heretics. As the current teaching of the Church states, baptism joins these people to the Church. And finally, you have to throw out the traditional belief in the salvation of righteous pagans (not to mention the OT patriarchs) held by many of the early Church fathers and doctors of the Church.
Bishop Hay was not speaking in an extraordinary exercise of the magisterium. He was teaching through his ordinary magisterial authority. Unless you are also going to give creedence to all other bishops speaking on that subject at the time, you cannot hold up his claim as being the proper interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Clearly, the magisterium has made clear since that time that such an interpretation is not the only acceptable theological opinion. The move against Fr. Feeney, although it did not condemn outright the interpretation as heretical, clearly discouraged that inerpretation. The latest pronouncements of the Church simply do not square with Bishop Hay's words.
The words of a handful of theologians in a particularly bitter period in Catholic history do not speak for the totality of Catholic doctrine, nor can they account for God's means or His mercy.For more information, see http://www.catholicfiles.com/againstfeeneyism.html
(...)
July 15, 2007
Peter Albert said...
Dear theocoid, I appreciate you took the time to analyze the arguments I have brought forward. I'm not going to discuss the question of the permanence of the dogma although it is disturbing that you could easily conclude that the 'current' teaching invalidates the ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope.
However, two important issues arise. First, you are advancing a number of reasons why Eugene IV should have made such a pronouncement. Let me quote him at the Council of Florence for the context:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Now, the above was not merely a response to specific heresies or clarification of some murky theological detail. In fact, it is a word-for-word assertion of the Athanasian Creed that can be found in the Prime hour of the traditional Roman breviary (all the way to 1962).
So to recapitulate unless one holds the two fundamental truths of the Catholic faith, i.e. the Trinity and Incarnation, one cannot be saved. This strict position did not spring up in the 15th century but may be easily seen in the first millennium when the councils placed anathemas on those who denied the dogma of the Trinity.
Secondly, bishop Hay need not be infallible to draw inference from the deposit of the faith. I believe you missed the point that was raised at the beggining of my earlier post. The question is not whether invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation (it needn't be), but how one may be in the state of sanctifying grace if one does not partake of sacraments. True, baptism of heretics and schismatics may be valid (against the position of Augustine), but how does one become justified with God outside the Catholic Church if:
-- Leo XIII did not accept the validity of Anglican orders,
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “… of Our own motion and certain knowledge We pronounce and declare that Ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and utterly void.”
-- the power of the keys is necessary for administering valid confession (Council of Trent).
Can anyone show me any infallible statements since then that would either approve of the Anglican rites or allow for valid confession in communities without Apostolic Succession? Vatican II? John Paul II? Benedict XVI? Any such statements?
Concluding with the oft-quoted Euguene IV and the Council of Florence:
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 (or perfect contrition, which is a gift from God) is needed for taking away mortal sin. To my knowledge, valid confession is not available in Judaism, Islam or Protestantism.
Dear theocoid and other contributors: I have a general question for you--is it truly charitable to assure non-Catholics of their salvation or claim ignorance as to their fate if they die in mortal sin? This smacks of hipocrisy since we know that as Catholics we will surely not be saved if we die in mortal sin. I hope, dad29, that you are not saying "We ain't smart enough to know" what will happen if we die in mortal sin. In case we don't know, the Gospel and letters of St. Paul may enlighten us easily.
There are a number of places in the Scripture where the prophets (starting with Noah and Lot, Moses all the way to John the Baptist) announced in no ambiguous terms to the neighbors and strangers alike that unless they repented and made use of God's terms of salvation (e.g. the ark, Passover, baptism) they would be lost. And as we know all this has been written for our education.In Christo,Peter Albert
July 16, 2007
Patrick said...
It's entertaining to think that what this boils down to is our declaration of specific persons in hell...
The Church has never (and will never) abrogate its Divine mandate to bring the entirety of humanity to know Christ in the Catholic Church through the sacraments. Obviously, the point of all such topics is individual conversion. (Perhaps a different topic, but people incorrectly denounce Dignatatis Humanae as being anti-missionary, when rather is merely states that a forced conversion is not really a conversion at all!) Those disagreeing with Fr. Feeney have no right to say that it is better for some to remain outside Church, as this directly contradicts Church teaching.
As members of the Catholic Church, we really have only one thing to concern ourselves with with respect to those outside the physical boundaries of the Church, and that is evangelization and our efforts at bringing about their conversion.
Our missionary outreach is truly an act of charity insofar as we are helping people attain what Christ desires for them--namely, incorporation and participation in the Mystical Body. It's not good enough to desire merely that someone not goes to hell; we must desire that they love God. (Take for example, the difference between perfect and imperfect contrition.)
So perhaps the Feeneyites are right, and only those physically in the Catholic Church are saved, or perhaps they are wrong, and God can work extraordinarily with respect to certain circumstances and people... Neither changes our mandate as those in the Church: namely to be evangelistic and missionary.
What does it all boil down to? Simply, the state of those souls not affected by our actions to the extent necessary for conversion. I don't see this as a point worth fighting over; the Church was intended to be the salvation of all peoples, and all within the Church have the perogative to spread the word of God to those who don't know it through means that are efficacious. Perhaps some will be converted by being reminded of the very real possibility of their souls spending eternity in hell as they remain outside of the effects of the sacraments, while others will be converted by the desire to have the authentic faith, hope, and charity present only in the Church.
July 16, 2007
Theocoid said...
You see, here is where the Feenyites play the whole changing dogma card. That's not what happened. Dogma has not changed. The interpretation you have put on the 15th-century formulation is simply wrong. Either that, or the new pronoucements in Lumen Gentium and the Catechism are wrong, which means the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church. I don't accept the latter, so I have to believe the former.
In addition, we still have an obligation to evanglize non-Catholics. Even though they might have to possibility of salvation because of the one sacrament they have received, they do not have the fullness of the means salvation. You're correct. It is not charitable to let people live in error, but that is hardly the same as saying that they have no chance of salvation.
July 16, 2007
Peter Albert said...
Dear theocoid, please note that the remark on the permanence of the dogma was an aside, and was not directly pertinent to the argument. Of course, the gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Church and of course the Church in heaven and on earth is in agreement on the dogma as we believe in the unity of the Church. So no disagreement here!
Also I'm glad that charity does not divide us as all Catholics ought to care for the salvation of their non-Catholic neighbors.
What remains to be seen, however, is how a baptized Christian may remain in the state of sanctifying grace without valid confession. It really comes down to the key controversy of Luther and Calvin vs. Trent -- does God require us to be sanctified through the confession of mortal sins to a valid priest or does 'faith alone' justify 'juridically' with God?
Of course, I'm not a Jansenist to believe that grace is not present outside the Catholic Church, and everyone on the forum seems to agree that the refusal to join the Catholic Church once one is aware of the duty to do so is sinful. In essence, one should then read the Lumen Gentium in a restrictive sense--the Holy Spirit operates outside the Church, grace is given to sinners to repent. But one should not read it in the sense that a Talmudic Jew who denies Jesus Christ or a Protestant who refuses the primacy of the Pope is free to do so and their beliefs are indifferent to their salvation.
If we speak of 'righteous pagans' then we assume that they not only follow their conscience but that they seek God. In that case, the Gospel promises that they will be given the Holy Spirit who will guide them into 'all things'. Some have appealed to God's mercy--indeed God is merciful enough to grant as much grace as is necessary for one to come to the fulness of salvation AS LONG AS ONE COOPERATES WITH THE GRACE ALREADY GRANTED.
2 Tim. 4:16 states that God wishes all to be saved. This does not mean that all WILL be saved (free will) but certainly that also does not mean that God will leave a 'righteous pagan' in the darkness of error if the person is sincere.
I hope this will show that a Catholic serious about extra ecclesiam nulla sallus need not lack in charity. Let us pray for the conversion of those still in the bondage of sin!
Peter Albert"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)