Let us mark well: To assert that acts of divine faith, hope, and charity are possible out of the Catholic Church is a direct denial of the article of faith: There is positively no salvation out of the Catholic Church; for, on account of these acts, God unites himself with the soul in time and eternity. If these acts, then, were possible out of the Catholic Church, there would be salvation out of the Catholic Church, to say which is a direct denial of the above article of faith, and therefore the assertion is heretical.
"A theologian," says St. Augustine, “who is humble, will never teach anything as true Catholic doctrine, unless he is perfectly sure of the truth which he asserts. If he is corrected in anything in which he erred, he thanks for the correction, because his only desire is to know the truth." (Epist. ad S. Hier. 73 n. 1.)
He hates novelties—Animus ab omni novitate alienus et antiquitatis amans. What he tries to assert and to defend is the pure doctrine of faith contained in Holy Scripture and Tradition. True Catholic doctrine, says Tertullian, is easily distinguished from false doctrine by the following rule: "Manifestetur id esse dominicum et verum, quod sit prius traditum; id autem extraneum et falsum, quod sit posterius immissum." (Lib. de Praescrip. cap. 31. Ed. Rig. 1675, p. 213.) A doctrine which has been taught and believed from the beginning is true Catholic doctrine; but any other doctrine is false.
Hence St. Paul admonishes St. Timothy, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoid the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called." (Chapt. vi. 20.)
"Vocum, id est, dogmatum, rerum, sententiarum novitates, quae sunt vetustati et antiquitati contrariae, quae si recipiantur, necesse est ut fides beatorum Patrum, aut tota, aut certe magna ex parte violetur. (Vincentius Lirinensis, Commonit., cap. 24.)
What has been believed by all the faithful at all times and everywhere, is truly Catholic doctrine. Any doctrines that are either wholly or at least very much opposed to the faith of the holy Fathers of the Church, are novel teachings, which are to be avoided. The article of faith reads not, "Out of the soul of the Church there is no salvation;" it reads, "Out of the Church (consisting of Body and Soul) there is positively no salvation for any one."
Hence rest assured that, as no one will let you have a precious article for counterfeit money, neither will Almighty God let you have heaven for serving him in a counterfeit religion by which he is greatly insulted and which he has most strictly forbidden, and which St. Paul and the Church have most solemnly accursed.
Such is, and such has always been the faith of the Church. It would be endless to collect all the testimonies of the Fathers of the Church on this subject. Let a few suffice, as a sample of the whole. St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, and disciple of the Apostles, in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, says: "Those who make a separation shall not inherit the kingdom of God." St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, and martyr in the second age, says: "The Church is the gate of life, but all the others are thieves and robbers, and therefore to be avoided." (De Haer., lib. i. c. 3.)
St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, and martyr about the middle of the third age, says, "The house of God is but one, and no one can have salvation but in the Church." (Epist. 62, alias 4.) And in his book on the unity of the Church, he says: "He cannot have God for his father who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was out of the ark of Noe, then he who is out of the Church may also escape." So much for these most primitive fathers.
In the fourth century, St. Chrysostom speaks thus: "We know that salvation belongs to the Church ALONE, and that no one can partake of Christ, nor be saved, out of the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith." (Hom. i. in Pasch.)
St. Augustine, in the same age, says: "The Catholic Church alone is the body of Christ; the Holy Ghost gives life to no one who is out of this body." (Epist. 185, § 50, Edit. Bened.) And in another place, "Salvation no one can have but in the Catholic Church. Out of the Catholic Church he may have anything but salvation. He may have honor, he may have baptism, he may have the Gospel, he may both believe and preach in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; but he can find salvation nowhere but in the Catholic Church." (Serm. ad. Caesariens. de Emerit.) Again, "In the Catholic Church," says he, "there are both good and bad. But those that are separated from her, as long as their opinions are opposite to hers, cannot be good. For though the conversation of some of them appears commendable, yet their very separation from the Church makes them bad, according to that of our Saviour (Luke, xi. 23), `He that is not with me is against is against me; and he that gathers not with me scattereth.'" —(Epist. 209, ad Feliciam.)
"Let a heretic," says St. Augustine, "confess Christ before men and shed his blood for his confession, it avails nothing to his salvation; for, thought he confessed Christ, he was put to death out of the Church." This is very true; any one who is put to death out of the Church could not have divine charity, for St. Paul says: "If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." (I Cor. xiii. 3.)
"Out of the Church there is no salvation;" Who can deny it? And therefore, whatever truths of the Church are held, out of the Church they avail nothing unto salvation. Those who are separated from the unity of the Church are not with Christ, but are against him, and he that gathereth not with him, scattereth. (Matt. xii. 30.) (Contra Donatistas.)
Lactantius, another great light of the fourth age, says: "It is the Catholic Church only which retains the true worship. This Church is the fountain of truth, it is the house of faith, it is the temple of God. If any one either comes not into this Church, or departs from it, his eternal salvation is desperate. No one must flatter himself obstinately, for his soul and salvation are at stake. "—(Divin. Instit., lib. iv., c. 30.)
St. Fulgentius, in the sixth century, speaks thus: "Hold most firmly, and without the least doubt, that neither any heretic or schismatic whosoever, who is baptized out of the Catholic Church, can partake at all of eternal life if, before the end of this life, he be not restored to the Catholic Church and incorporated therein." (Lib. de Fid., c. 37.) According to the first Canon of the Fourth Council of Carthage, the last of the articles which a Bishop-Elect is to be asked before his ordination is: "i>Credatne quod extra Ecclesiam nullus salvetur." Whether he believes that no one can be saved out of the Church.
We repeat the words of St. Alphonsus:—
"How grateful, then," he says "ought we to be to God for the gift of the true faith. How great is not the number of infidels, heretics, and schismatics. The world is full of them, and, if they die out of the Church, they will all be condemned, except infants who die after baptism." (Catech. first command., No. 10 and 19.) Because, as St. Augustine says, where there is no divine faith, there can be no divine charity, and where there is no divine charity, there can be no justifying or sanctifying grace, and to die without being in sanctifying grace is to be lost forever. (Lib. I. Serm. Dom. in monte, cap. v.)
All the Fathers of the Church have never hesitated to pronounce all those forever lost who die out of the Roman Catholic Church. “He who has not the Church for his mother," says St. Cyprian, “cannot have God for his Father;" and with him the Fathers in general say that, “as all who were not in the ark of Noe perished in the waters of the Deluge, so shall all perish who are out of the true Church." St. Augustine and the other bishops of Africa, at the Council of Zirta, A. D. 410, say: “Who-soever is separated from the Catholic Church, however commendable in his own opinion his life may be, he shall, for the very reason that he is separated from the union of Christ, not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Therefore, says St. Augustine, “a Christian ought to fear nothing so much as to be separated from the body of Christ (the Church). For, if he be separated from the body of Christ, he is not a member of Christ; if not a member of Christ, he is not quickened by his Spirit." (Tract. xxvii. in Joan., n. 6, Col. 1992, tom. iii.)
“To an enlightened Catholic," says Brownson, "there is something very shocking in the supposition that the article of faith, ‘out of the Church positively no one can be saved,’ should be only generally true, and therefore not an article of faith. All Catholic dogmas, if Catholic, are not only generally, but universally true, and admit no exception or restriction whatever. If men could come to Christ and be saved without the Church, or union with Christ in the Church, she would not be Catholic, and it would be false to call her the ‘One, Holy, Catholic Church,' as in the Creed."
“The Church is called Catholic," says the Catechism of the Council of Trent, “because all who desire eternal salvation must embrace and cling to her, like those who entered the ark, to escape perishing in the flood.”
Hence any one who explains away the dogma of exclusive salvation, denies, in principle, the Catholicity of the Church and the faith she holds and teaches.
Of every dogma of the Church is true what Pope Pius IX. has declared of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, namely: "wherefore, if any persons—which God forbid—shall presume to think in their hearts otherwise than we have defined, let them know that they are condemned by their own judgment, that they have suffered shipwreck in faith, and have fallen away from the unity of the Church." And in the definition of the dogma of the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff it is said: “But if any one—which God may avert!—presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema."
We must believe the truths of faith, not on account of human reasons, which are given in support and corroboration of any article of faith, but on account of the divine authority, which has revealed the articles of faith and proposes them for our belief by the Church. Any one who believes these articles only on account of human reasons, says St. Gregory, has no merit of his faith. (Homil. 26 in Evang.) The truths of the Gospel have been revealed by God, not to be understood, but to be believed. So, when we know that our Lord Jesus Christ has taught something and proposes it for our belief by his Church, we have to believe it most firmly and without the least doubt.
Showing posts with label catholic church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label catholic church. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Rev Muller On Salvation of Those Protestants Who Are Not Guilty of Sin of Heresy
Not guilty of the sin of heresy are all those who, without any fault of theirs, were brought up in a sect of Protestantism, and who never had an opportunity of knowing better. This class of Protestants are called invincibly or inculpably ignorant of the true religion, or material heretics.
Now, let us see what the Rev. Alfred Young, a Paulist Father of New York, says of material heretics, in an article which he had published in the Buffalo Union and Times on March 22, 1888. He says: "He was baptized in his infancy, and was then a Catholic child as good as any other Catholic child." -- This is quite correct, and if be had died before he came to the use of reason, he would have gone straight to heaven.
But, after he had come to the years of understanding, he was brought up in heresy; but, according to his statement, he was only a material, not a formal heretic.
It can hardly be doubted that, amongst Protestants, many are only material heretics. Reiffenstuel gives this as his opinion regarding great numbers amongst the mass of heretics. The same is the opinion of Lacroix, and several other authors cited by him, with regard to the Protestants of Germany; and what is true of them is equally true of Protestants in other countries. "Some of them," he says, "are so simple, or so prejudiced by the teaching of their ministers, that they are persuaded of the truth of their own religion, and at the same time so sincere and conscientious, that, if they knew it to be false, they would at once embrace ours. Such as these are not formal, but only material heretics; and that there are many such is testified by numbers of confessors in Germany and authors of the greatest experience."
"What is most deplorable in their case," says Lacroix, "is that, should they fall into any other mortal sin, as may very easily happen to such persons, (because without special grace it is impossible to keep the commandments,) they are deprived of the grace of the principal sacraments, and are commonly lost, not on account of material heresy, but on account of other sins they have committed, and from which they are not freed by the sacrament of penance, which does not exist amongst them; nor by an act of contrition or perfect charity, which they commonly do not attend to, or think of eliciting (to say nothing of the very great difficulty such men would have in doing so, thinking they are justified by faith alone and trust in Christ; and by this accursed confidence they are miserably lost." (Lacroix, Lib. ii. n. 94.)
It is well to distinguish here between two classes of Protestants.
The first is that of those who either live among Catholics or have Catholics living in the same country with them; who know there are such persons, and often hear of them. The second regards those who have no such knowledge, and who seldom or never hear Catholics spoken of, except in a false and odious light.
We read in Holy Scripture that Almighty God, at different times, scattered the Jews among the heathen and performed great miracles in favor of his chosen people. He thus wished the Gentiles to come to the knowledge of the true God. In like manner, Almighty God has scattered the Roman Catholics, the children of his Church, among the heathens of our time and the Protestants. He has never failed to perform miracles in the Catholic Church. Who has not heard of the many great miracles performed in France, and elsewhere, by the use of the miraculous water of Lourdes? Who has not witnessed the wonderful protection of the Catholic Church? Who has not read the truths of the Catholic Church, even in Protestant newspapers? Who has not heard of the conversion of so many wealthy and learned Protestants to the Catholic Church? The Lord, who wishes that all should come to the knowledge of the true religion, makes use of these and other means to cause doubts to arise in the souls of those who are separated from his Church. Hence it is, as Bishop Hay says, next to the impossible for those Protestants who live among Catholics to be in a state of invincible ignorance.
Such doubts as to their salvation in Protestantism are, for our separated brethren, a great grace, as Almighty God, by these doubts, begins to lead them to the way of salvation, by obliging them to seek in all sincerity for light and instruction. But those who do not heed these doubts remain culpably erroneous in a matter of the greatest importance; and to die in this state is to die in the state of reprobation; it is to be lost forever through one's own fault, as we have seen above.
But let us remember here, that "it is a mistake," as Bishop Hay well says, "to suppose that a formal doubt is necessary to render one's ignorance of his duty voluntary and culpable; it is enough that there be sufficient reason for doubting, though from his unjust prejudices, obstinacy, pride, or other evil dispositions of the heart, he hinder these reasons from exciting a formal doubt in his mind. Saul had no doubt when he offered sacrifice before the prophet Samuel came; on the contrary, he was persuaded that he had the strongest reasons for doing so, yet he was condemned for that very action, and himself and his family rejected by Almighty God. The Jews believed that they were acting well when they put our Saviour to death; nay, their high priest declared in full council that it was expedient for the good and safety of the nation that they should do so. They were grossly mistaken, indeed, and sadly ignorant of their duty; but their ignorance was culpable, and they were severely condemned for what they did, though it was done in ignorance. And, indeed, all who act from a false and erroneous conscience are highly blamable for having such a conscience, though they have never entertained any formal doubt. Nay, their not having such a doubt when they have just and solid grounds for doubting, rather renders them the more guilty, because it shows greater corruption of the heart, greater depravity of disposition. A person brought up in a false faith, which the Scriptures calls sects of perdition, doctrines of devils, perverse things, lies, and hypocrisy—and who has heard of the true Church of Christ, which condemns all these sects, and sees their divisions and dissensions—has always before his eyes the strongest reason to doubt the safety of his own state. If he makes any examination with sincere dispositions of heart, he must be convinced that he is in the wrong; and the more he examines, the more clearly will he see it, —for this plain reason, that it is simply impossible that false doctrine, lies, and hypocrisy should ever be supported by solid arguments sufficient to satisfy a reasonable person, who sincerely seeks the truth and begs light from God to direct him in the search. Hence, if such a person never doubt, but go on, as is supposed, bona fide, in his own way, notwithstanding the strong grounds of doubt which he daily has before his eyes, this evidently shows either that he is supinely negligent in the concern of his soul, or that his heart is totally blinded by passion and prejudice. There were many such persons among the Jews and heathens in the time if the apostles, who, notwithstanding the splendid light of truth which these holy preachers everywhere displayed, and which was the most powerful reason for leading them to doubt of their superstitions, were so far from having such doubts, that they thought by killing the apostles they did God a service. Whence did this arise? St. Paul himself informs us. "We renounce,” says he, "the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the Word of God, but, by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." Here he describes the strange light of the truth which he preached; yet this light was hidden to great numbers, and he immediately gives the reason: "And if our Gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost; in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine upon them." (II. Cor. iv. 2.) Behold the real cause of their incredulity: they are so enslaved to the things of this world by the depravity of their heart, and the devil so blinds them, that they cannot see the light; but ignorance arising from such depraved dispositions is a guilty, a voluntary ignorance, and therefore never can excuse them.
If this kind of material heretics, then, are lost, they are not lost on account of their heresy, which for them was no sin, but on account of the grievous sins that they committed against their conscience. "For whosoever have sinned without the law," says St. Paul, "shall perish without the law." (Rom. ii. 10.) The great Apostle wishes to say: Those of the heathens who do not know anything of the Christian Law, but sin against the natural Law, their conscience, will be lost, not on account of the sin of infidelity; which was no sin for those who were invincibly ignorant of the Christian Law, but on account of the great sin which they committed against the voice of' God speaking to them by their conscience. The same must be said of those Protestants who are inculpably ignorant of the Catholic religion, but sin grievously against their conscience.
"God," says St. Thomas, "enlightens every man who comes into the world, and produces in all mankind the light of nature and of grace, as the sun does the light which imparts color and animation to all objects. But if any obstacle prevented its rays from falling on a certain object, would you attribute that defect to the sun? Or if you closed up all your windows and made your room quite dark, could you say the sun is the cause of that darkness? It is the same with the man who, by grievous sins, closes the eyes of his understanding to the light of heaven; for he is then enveloped in profound obscurity and walks in moral darkness. A scholar, who wishes to learn a more sublime science or doctrine, must have a brighter and more comprehensive conception, in order to understand clearly his master. In like manner, man, in order to be more capable of receiving divine inspirations, must have a particular disposition for them. "The Lord God hath opened my ear, and I do not resist, neither do I withdraw from Him.' (Isai. i. 5.) Hence all vices are contrary to the gifts of the Holy Ghost, because they are in opposition to divine inspiration; and they are also contrary both to God and to reason, for reason receives its lights and inspirations from God. Therefore he who grievously offends God, and is, on this account, not enlightened to know and believe the truths of salvation, must blame himself for his spiritual misfortune and punishment. Of these St. Paul says: In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them. (Cor. iv. 4.) `Blind the heart of this people, and shut their ears and eyes.' (Isai. vi. 10.)"
Be it also remembered that the light of faith is withheld from those Protestants who resemble the Pharisees. "They form to themselves," says Bishop Hay, "a great idea of their good works, not observing the vast difference there is between natural good moral actions, and supernatural Christian good works, which alone will bring a man to heaven. However corrupted our nature is by sin, yet there are few or none of the seed of Adam, who have not certain good natural dispositions, some being more inclined to one virtue, some to another. Thus some are of a humane, benevolent disposition; some tender-hearted and compassionate towards others in distress; some just and upright in their dealings; some temperate and sober; some mild and patient; some also have natural feelings of devotion, and of reverence for the Supreme Being. Now, all such good natural dispositions of themselves are far from being Christian virtues, and are altogether incapable of bringing a man to heaven. They indeed make him who has them agreeable to men, and procure him esteem and regard from those with whom he lives; but they are of no avail before God with regard to eternity. To be convinced of this, we need only observe that good natural dispositions of this kind are found in Mahometans, Jews, and heathens, as well as among Christians; yet no Christian can suppose that a Mahometan, Jew, or heathen, who dies in that state, will obtain the kingdom of heaven by means of these virtues.
The Pharisees, among the people of God, were remarkable for many such virtues; they had a great veneration for the law of God; they made open profession of piety and devotion; gave large alms to the poor; fasted and prayed much; were assiduous in all the public observances of religion; were remarkable for their strict observance of the Sabbath, and had an abhorrence of all profanation of the holy name of God; yet Jesus Christ himself expressly declares: "Except your righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. v. 20.) We are told that one of their number went up to the temple to pray, who was, in the eyes of the world, a very good man, led an innocent life, free from those grosser crimes which are so common among men, fasted twice a week, and gave tithes of all he possessed; yet Christ himself assures us that he was condemned in the sight of God. All this proves that none of the above good dispositions of nature are capable in themselves of bringing any man to heaven. And the reason is, because “there is no other name given to men under heaven by which we can be saved, but the name of Jesus only," (Acts iv. 10); therefore, no good works whatsoever, performed through the good dispositions of nature only, can ever be crowned by God with eternal happiness. To obtain this glorious reward, our good works must be sanctified by the blood of Jesus, and become Christian virtues.
Now, if we search the Holy Scriptures, we find two conditions absolutely required to make our good works agreeable to God, and conducive to our salvation. First, that we be united to Jesus Christ by true faith, which is the root and foundation of all Christian virtues; for St. Paul expressly says, “Without faith it is impossible to please God." (Heb. xi. 6.). Observe the word impossible; he does not say it is difficult, but that it is impossible. Let, therefore, a man have ever so many good natural dispositions, and be as charitable, devout, and mortified as the Pharisees were, yet if he have not true faith in Jesus Christ, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. They refused to believe in him, and therefore all their works were good for nothing as to their salvation; and unless our righteousness exceed theirs in this point, as Christ himself assures us, we shall never enter into his heavenly kingdom.
But even true faith itself, however necessary, is not sufficient alone to make our good works available to salvation; for it is necessary, in the second place, that we be in charity with God, in his friendship and grace, without which even true faith itself will never save us. To be convinced of this, let us only give ear to St. Paul, who says, “Though I should have all faith, so as to remove mountains, though I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, though I should give my body to be burnt, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." (I Cor. xiii. 2.) So that, let a man be ever so peaceable, regular, inoffensive, and religious in his way, charitable to the poor, and what else you please, yet if he have not the true faith of Jesus Christ, and be not in charity with God, all his apparent virtues go for nothing; it is impossible for him to please God by them; and if he live and die in that state, they will profit him nothing.
Hence it is manifest that those who die in a false religion, however unexceptionable may be their moral conduct in the eyes of men, yet, as they have not the true faith in Christ, and are not in charity with him, they are not in the way of salvation; for nothing can avail us in Christ but “faith that works by charity." (Gal. v. 6.)
Now, let us see what the Rev. Alfred Young, a Paulist Father of New York, says of material heretics, in an article which he had published in the Buffalo Union and Times on March 22, 1888. He says: "He was baptized in his infancy, and was then a Catholic child as good as any other Catholic child." -- This is quite correct, and if be had died before he came to the use of reason, he would have gone straight to heaven.
But, after he had come to the years of understanding, he was brought up in heresy; but, according to his statement, he was only a material, not a formal heretic.
It can hardly be doubted that, amongst Protestants, many are only material heretics. Reiffenstuel gives this as his opinion regarding great numbers amongst the mass of heretics. The same is the opinion of Lacroix, and several other authors cited by him, with regard to the Protestants of Germany; and what is true of them is equally true of Protestants in other countries. "Some of them," he says, "are so simple, or so prejudiced by the teaching of their ministers, that they are persuaded of the truth of their own religion, and at the same time so sincere and conscientious, that, if they knew it to be false, they would at once embrace ours. Such as these are not formal, but only material heretics; and that there are many such is testified by numbers of confessors in Germany and authors of the greatest experience."
"What is most deplorable in their case," says Lacroix, "is that, should they fall into any other mortal sin, as may very easily happen to such persons, (because without special grace it is impossible to keep the commandments,) they are deprived of the grace of the principal sacraments, and are commonly lost, not on account of material heresy, but on account of other sins they have committed, and from which they are not freed by the sacrament of penance, which does not exist amongst them; nor by an act of contrition or perfect charity, which they commonly do not attend to, or think of eliciting (to say nothing of the very great difficulty such men would have in doing so, thinking they are justified by faith alone and trust in Christ; and by this accursed confidence they are miserably lost." (Lacroix, Lib. ii. n. 94.)
It is well to distinguish here between two classes of Protestants.
The first is that of those who either live among Catholics or have Catholics living in the same country with them; who know there are such persons, and often hear of them. The second regards those who have no such knowledge, and who seldom or never hear Catholics spoken of, except in a false and odious light.
We read in Holy Scripture that Almighty God, at different times, scattered the Jews among the heathen and performed great miracles in favor of his chosen people. He thus wished the Gentiles to come to the knowledge of the true God. In like manner, Almighty God has scattered the Roman Catholics, the children of his Church, among the heathens of our time and the Protestants. He has never failed to perform miracles in the Catholic Church. Who has not heard of the many great miracles performed in France, and elsewhere, by the use of the miraculous water of Lourdes? Who has not witnessed the wonderful protection of the Catholic Church? Who has not read the truths of the Catholic Church, even in Protestant newspapers? Who has not heard of the conversion of so many wealthy and learned Protestants to the Catholic Church? The Lord, who wishes that all should come to the knowledge of the true religion, makes use of these and other means to cause doubts to arise in the souls of those who are separated from his Church. Hence it is, as Bishop Hay says, next to the impossible for those Protestants who live among Catholics to be in a state of invincible ignorance.
Such doubts as to their salvation in Protestantism are, for our separated brethren, a great grace, as Almighty God, by these doubts, begins to lead them to the way of salvation, by obliging them to seek in all sincerity for light and instruction. But those who do not heed these doubts remain culpably erroneous in a matter of the greatest importance; and to die in this state is to die in the state of reprobation; it is to be lost forever through one's own fault, as we have seen above.
But let us remember here, that "it is a mistake," as Bishop Hay well says, "to suppose that a formal doubt is necessary to render one's ignorance of his duty voluntary and culpable; it is enough that there be sufficient reason for doubting, though from his unjust prejudices, obstinacy, pride, or other evil dispositions of the heart, he hinder these reasons from exciting a formal doubt in his mind. Saul had no doubt when he offered sacrifice before the prophet Samuel came; on the contrary, he was persuaded that he had the strongest reasons for doing so, yet he was condemned for that very action, and himself and his family rejected by Almighty God. The Jews believed that they were acting well when they put our Saviour to death; nay, their high priest declared in full council that it was expedient for the good and safety of the nation that they should do so. They were grossly mistaken, indeed, and sadly ignorant of their duty; but their ignorance was culpable, and they were severely condemned for what they did, though it was done in ignorance. And, indeed, all who act from a false and erroneous conscience are highly blamable for having such a conscience, though they have never entertained any formal doubt. Nay, their not having such a doubt when they have just and solid grounds for doubting, rather renders them the more guilty, because it shows greater corruption of the heart, greater depravity of disposition. A person brought up in a false faith, which the Scriptures calls sects of perdition, doctrines of devils, perverse things, lies, and hypocrisy—and who has heard of the true Church of Christ, which condemns all these sects, and sees their divisions and dissensions—has always before his eyes the strongest reason to doubt the safety of his own state. If he makes any examination with sincere dispositions of heart, he must be convinced that he is in the wrong; and the more he examines, the more clearly will he see it, —for this plain reason, that it is simply impossible that false doctrine, lies, and hypocrisy should ever be supported by solid arguments sufficient to satisfy a reasonable person, who sincerely seeks the truth and begs light from God to direct him in the search. Hence, if such a person never doubt, but go on, as is supposed, bona fide, in his own way, notwithstanding the strong grounds of doubt which he daily has before his eyes, this evidently shows either that he is supinely negligent in the concern of his soul, or that his heart is totally blinded by passion and prejudice. There were many such persons among the Jews and heathens in the time if the apostles, who, notwithstanding the splendid light of truth which these holy preachers everywhere displayed, and which was the most powerful reason for leading them to doubt of their superstitions, were so far from having such doubts, that they thought by killing the apostles they did God a service. Whence did this arise? St. Paul himself informs us. "We renounce,” says he, "the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the Word of God, but, by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." Here he describes the strange light of the truth which he preached; yet this light was hidden to great numbers, and he immediately gives the reason: "And if our Gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost; in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine upon them." (II. Cor. iv. 2.) Behold the real cause of their incredulity: they are so enslaved to the things of this world by the depravity of their heart, and the devil so blinds them, that they cannot see the light; but ignorance arising from such depraved dispositions is a guilty, a voluntary ignorance, and therefore never can excuse them.
If this kind of material heretics, then, are lost, they are not lost on account of their heresy, which for them was no sin, but on account of the grievous sins that they committed against their conscience. "For whosoever have sinned without the law," says St. Paul, "shall perish without the law." (Rom. ii. 10.) The great Apostle wishes to say: Those of the heathens who do not know anything of the Christian Law, but sin against the natural Law, their conscience, will be lost, not on account of the sin of infidelity; which was no sin for those who were invincibly ignorant of the Christian Law, but on account of the great sin which they committed against the voice of' God speaking to them by their conscience. The same must be said of those Protestants who are inculpably ignorant of the Catholic religion, but sin grievously against their conscience.
"God," says St. Thomas, "enlightens every man who comes into the world, and produces in all mankind the light of nature and of grace, as the sun does the light which imparts color and animation to all objects. But if any obstacle prevented its rays from falling on a certain object, would you attribute that defect to the sun? Or if you closed up all your windows and made your room quite dark, could you say the sun is the cause of that darkness? It is the same with the man who, by grievous sins, closes the eyes of his understanding to the light of heaven; for he is then enveloped in profound obscurity and walks in moral darkness. A scholar, who wishes to learn a more sublime science or doctrine, must have a brighter and more comprehensive conception, in order to understand clearly his master. In like manner, man, in order to be more capable of receiving divine inspirations, must have a particular disposition for them. "The Lord God hath opened my ear, and I do not resist, neither do I withdraw from Him.' (Isai. i. 5.) Hence all vices are contrary to the gifts of the Holy Ghost, because they are in opposition to divine inspiration; and they are also contrary both to God and to reason, for reason receives its lights and inspirations from God. Therefore he who grievously offends God, and is, on this account, not enlightened to know and believe the truths of salvation, must blame himself for his spiritual misfortune and punishment. Of these St. Paul says: In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them. (Cor. iv. 4.) `Blind the heart of this people, and shut their ears and eyes.' (Isai. vi. 10.)"
Be it also remembered that the light of faith is withheld from those Protestants who resemble the Pharisees. "They form to themselves," says Bishop Hay, "a great idea of their good works, not observing the vast difference there is between natural good moral actions, and supernatural Christian good works, which alone will bring a man to heaven. However corrupted our nature is by sin, yet there are few or none of the seed of Adam, who have not certain good natural dispositions, some being more inclined to one virtue, some to another. Thus some are of a humane, benevolent disposition; some tender-hearted and compassionate towards others in distress; some just and upright in their dealings; some temperate and sober; some mild and patient; some also have natural feelings of devotion, and of reverence for the Supreme Being. Now, all such good natural dispositions of themselves are far from being Christian virtues, and are altogether incapable of bringing a man to heaven. They indeed make him who has them agreeable to men, and procure him esteem and regard from those with whom he lives; but they are of no avail before God with regard to eternity. To be convinced of this, we need only observe that good natural dispositions of this kind are found in Mahometans, Jews, and heathens, as well as among Christians; yet no Christian can suppose that a Mahometan, Jew, or heathen, who dies in that state, will obtain the kingdom of heaven by means of these virtues.
The Pharisees, among the people of God, were remarkable for many such virtues; they had a great veneration for the law of God; they made open profession of piety and devotion; gave large alms to the poor; fasted and prayed much; were assiduous in all the public observances of religion; were remarkable for their strict observance of the Sabbath, and had an abhorrence of all profanation of the holy name of God; yet Jesus Christ himself expressly declares: "Except your righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. v. 20.) We are told that one of their number went up to the temple to pray, who was, in the eyes of the world, a very good man, led an innocent life, free from those grosser crimes which are so common among men, fasted twice a week, and gave tithes of all he possessed; yet Christ himself assures us that he was condemned in the sight of God. All this proves that none of the above good dispositions of nature are capable in themselves of bringing any man to heaven. And the reason is, because “there is no other name given to men under heaven by which we can be saved, but the name of Jesus only," (Acts iv. 10); therefore, no good works whatsoever, performed through the good dispositions of nature only, can ever be crowned by God with eternal happiness. To obtain this glorious reward, our good works must be sanctified by the blood of Jesus, and become Christian virtues.
Now, if we search the Holy Scriptures, we find two conditions absolutely required to make our good works agreeable to God, and conducive to our salvation. First, that we be united to Jesus Christ by true faith, which is the root and foundation of all Christian virtues; for St. Paul expressly says, “Without faith it is impossible to please God." (Heb. xi. 6.). Observe the word impossible; he does not say it is difficult, but that it is impossible. Let, therefore, a man have ever so many good natural dispositions, and be as charitable, devout, and mortified as the Pharisees were, yet if he have not true faith in Jesus Christ, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. They refused to believe in him, and therefore all their works were good for nothing as to their salvation; and unless our righteousness exceed theirs in this point, as Christ himself assures us, we shall never enter into his heavenly kingdom.
But even true faith itself, however necessary, is not sufficient alone to make our good works available to salvation; for it is necessary, in the second place, that we be in charity with God, in his friendship and grace, without which even true faith itself will never save us. To be convinced of this, let us only give ear to St. Paul, who says, “Though I should have all faith, so as to remove mountains, though I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, though I should give my body to be burnt, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." (I Cor. xiii. 2.) So that, let a man be ever so peaceable, regular, inoffensive, and religious in his way, charitable to the poor, and what else you please, yet if he have not the true faith of Jesus Christ, and be not in charity with God, all his apparent virtues go for nothing; it is impossible for him to please God by them; and if he live and die in that state, they will profit him nothing.
Hence it is manifest that those who die in a false religion, however unexceptionable may be their moral conduct in the eyes of men, yet, as they have not the true faith in Christ, and are not in charity with him, they are not in the way of salvation; for nothing can avail us in Christ but “faith that works by charity." (Gal. v. 6.)
Where Is the Church From Before 1963?
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.
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.
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."
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"
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Is It Necessary to Convert to the Catholic Church To Be Saved?
In my first post, I referred to the crucial alternative as to the possibility of salvation between 'universalism' and 'exclusivism'. This comes down to a stark choice between two statements:
Pope Eugene IV stated ex cathedra 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."
On the other hand, the Second Vatican Council proclaimed in the decree Unitatis redintegratio that salvation indeed is possible outside the Roman Catholic Church and that sacraments are effective towards salvation for those who remain in 'separated churches and Communities' and do not return to the visible unity with the Catholic Church before the end of their lives:
“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”
Contrary to those who harbor illusions as to the possible 'Counterreform' apace under Benedict XVI--this quote appears verbatim in last week's document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church".
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? The quoted document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith cites an important announcement made by John XXIII in his opening Address to the Vatican II council:
"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."
My personal conclusion is that the teachings of the Vatican II allow the interpretation that it is not necessary to convert to the Roman Catholic Church to be saved. This is, in fact, how many of the prominent hierarchs understand this doctrine. Several quotes, taken from the materials posted by Brothers Dimond on their website www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com will illustrate this.
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).
The latter two quotes are taken from the online version of the book by Bro. Michael Dimond and Bro. Peter Dimon, The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II
In the next post, I will look at the tragedy of Holocaust from the perspective of salvation of the many victims' souls.
In Christo
Peter
Pope Eugene IV stated ex cathedra 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."
On the other hand, the Second Vatican Council proclaimed in the decree Unitatis redintegratio that salvation indeed is possible outside the Roman Catholic Church and that sacraments are effective towards salvation for those who remain in 'separated churches and Communities' and do not return to the visible unity with the Catholic Church before the end of their lives:
“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”
Contrary to those who harbor illusions as to the possible 'Counterreform' apace under Benedict XVI--this quote appears verbatim in last week's document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church".
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? The quoted document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith cites an important announcement made by John XXIII in his opening Address to the Vatican II council:
"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."
My personal conclusion is that the teachings of the Vatican II allow the interpretation that it is not necessary to convert to the Roman Catholic Church to be saved. This is, in fact, how many of the prominent hierarchs understand this doctrine. Several quotes, taken from the materials posted by Brothers Dimond on their website www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com will illustrate this.
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).
The latter two quotes are taken from the online version of the book by Bro. Michael Dimond and Bro. Peter Dimon, The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II
In the next post, I will look at the tragedy of Holocaust from the perspective of salvation of the many victims' souls.
In Christo
Peter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)