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."
Showing posts with label council of florence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label council of florence. Show all posts
Monday, July 23, 2007
Righteous Pagans and Uncertainty of Salvation
In response to my criticism of Mr. Sungenis' defense of 'baptism of desire', the host suggested that I consider Romans 2:14-16:
When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
and 1 Timothy 2:4
[God, our Saviour] will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Moreover, he asked a few questions, such as:
"What is the meaning of EENS? Or better stated, what should EENS mean for Catholics? Are card-carrying Catholics the only ones saved? Is God’s will to save (1 Tim. 2:4) limited to those who sit in the pew each Sunday at a Catholic Mass? Though the Church’s role is integral to salvation as the only venue of (grace) salvation to the world, must one be a "formal member" to be saved?Or can those, who through no fault of their own, who do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience achieve eternal salvation?"
"Do you consider yourself what is generally known (though it may be a veritable misnomer) as a Feeneyite?"
and
"Again, isn’t the personal relationship very important? Furthermore, does the Church dictate to us who is saved and who is not saved?"
Here is my response:
I would not use Romans 2:14-16 as another 'alternative gate' to salvation. Haydock patristic commentary clearly sees the conscience-driven actions of the pagans as 'dispositions' that allow God to give them 'some supernatural graces, by which they come to know, and believe, that he will reward their souls for eternity. Such, says S. Chrysostom, were the dispositions of Melchisedech, Job, Cornelius the Centurion, etc.' So here are the righteous pagans, who should be clearly distinguished from those listed in verse 12 'whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law' and Haydock explains that their guilt consists of acting 'against their reason and conscience'.
I'd like to stop at verse 12 a bit to explain my take. No, I'm not a Feeneyite since I did not gain insight into the dogma of the EENS from Fr. Feeney but from the Council of Florence. At the Council, Eugene IV not only made the famous statement:"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives;" but also expounded the reason in the next line:
"the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church"
Please note that "only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation". My concern is that the idea of 'baptism of desire' points to extraordinary means of salvation at the expense of the ordinary means,i.e. sacraments. While Fr. Feeney focused on the importance of baptism, I think the key issue is the other sacraments, in particular the Communion and penance.
In another discussion I brought up another quote from Pope Eugene IV, which elucidates the necessity of sacramental penance for salvation:Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to Hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
From the above we may infer that, while baptism takes away the stain of original sin, valid confession is needed for taking away mortal sin. To my knowledge, valid confession is not available in Judaism, Islam or Protestantism.
I'm not a Feeneyite, nor am I a Jansenist, since I do acknowledge the Church's teaching on the validity of an act of perfect contrition, the availability of grace for the true seekers of God, and the fact that invincible grace need not damn anyone. I will quote Bishop Hay who in 1787 wrote the following in his book "Sincere Christian" on the topic of invincible ignorance:
"Q. 14. But can none who are in heresy, and in invincible ignorance of the Truth be saved?A. God forbid we should say so! All the above reasons only prove that if they live and die in that state they will not be saved, and that according to the present providence they cannot be saved? but the great God is able to take them out of that state, to cure even their ignorance though invincible to them tin their present situation, to bring them to the knowledge of the True Faith, and to the communion of His Holy Church, and in consequence of that to salvation; and we further add, that if He be pleased, of his infinite mercy, to save any who are at present in invincible ignorance of the Truth, in order to act consistently with Himself, and with His Holy Word [for, indeed, God is bound by His Word; God cannot deceive us], He will undoubtedly bring them to the union of His Holy Church for that purpose, before they die."
This agrees perfectly with Romans 2:14-16. Haydock quotes John Chrysostom who believed that the righteous pagans would be granted supernatural graces NOT TO be left in invincible ignorance. Cornelius was a good example: St. Peter realized that "God is no respecter of persons but in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35) This shows that the Holy Spirit works outside the visible confines of the Church, against Quesnel, Baius and Jansenius. However, note Peter's conclusion--"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 10:47-48). Should I add that Peter needed the revelation from the Holy Ghost through Cornelius to see that pagans, despite being Jewish proselytes--'God-fearing'--should not be denied baptism if they DESIRED one?
Do I need to go into detail in 1 Timothy 2:4? It's not necessary to resort to the argument ad absurdum as to God's will only for those attending the Mass. Again, the EENS is not about the predestination--yes, God wills all to be saved, and Jesus' work applies to all, but as Haydock comments on this verse, the obstacle is not with God, but with people: "if they are not saved, it is by their own fault, by their not corresponding with the graces offered, it is because they resist the Holy Ghost" (p. 1566).
I'm not a theologian, just a layman, but just by browsing a traditional dogmatic theology manual, I noticed that the 'graces' to which Haydock refers must be so-called gratia excitans which should lead one to the recognition of sin and doing well. However, one cannot be saved without supernatural SANCTIFYING grace, which is a state! How do we receive sanctifying grace--in the Church through the absolution of mortal sins in the sacrament of penance, available through a valid priest and 'effective' only in the Catholic Church.The above brings me to the favorite charge against the EENS--that it leads to the judgment on the non-Catholics' damnation. We both know that we are not to judge, but we know what the ordinary means of salvation are since they have been used by the saints, and there are only canonized saints in the Catholic Church!
True, the Church does not tell us who is not saved--except it passes a judgment on heresy and schism through excommunication and it recognizes the saints. This is done for our own good so that we would know which way to take.
No-one knows when the Lord returns, yet we are repeatedly admonished to 'be ready'. No-one knows the number of the saved, yet we are told that 'many are called but few are chosen'. I once raised in a forum the issue of charity--since we know that as Catholics we are going to enter into heaven with greatest difficulty, and this only through application of the sacraments and assistance of the saints, how will those outside manage? Should we not alert them to the possibility of damnation, just as we should consider this. The greatest, Moses, David, St. Peter and St. Paul trembled about their salvation--contrary to impious Calvin who spoke of the assurance of perseverance of the saints! Contrary to him speaks Martin von Cochem in "Four Last Things" in the chapter on 'The Number of the Saved' (page 216 of Benziger Edition of 1899):
"Since there are so many adversaries who assail us, adversaries so crafty, so strong, so fierce, who can deem himself sure of victory? It is little short of a miracle if one escapes the clutches of foes so numerous and so formidable. Who can hope in his own strength to triumph over them? We must needs acknowledge that all who have overcome the evil enemy, the evil world, and their own evil proclivities, have been strengthened by God with his special assistance. Hence we see how toilsome and laborious work it is to win heaven; and we learn the truth of Our Lord's words, when He said 'The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away'"
Now, does this picture correspond to Mr. Sungenis' concept of a believer even unaware of being saved? How are we to believe that sacraments can be dispensed with in the process of 'crucifying our selves'? Since when 'the world' has become a safe place where the righteous may grow untarnished by the temptations? This certainly does not square with the apostolic teaching since St. Peter's first sermon in which he left no alternative to the fellow Jews but to repent and be baptized.
Hence I see no point in weakening the traditional teaching of the importance of sacraments to the spiritual life by conceding that 'somehow' it's possible to grow in relationship with God and not be called into the communion with the Catholic Church. Any cases, please?
When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
and 1 Timothy 2:4
[God, our Saviour] will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Moreover, he asked a few questions, such as:
"What is the meaning of EENS? Or better stated, what should EENS mean for Catholics? Are card-carrying Catholics the only ones saved? Is God’s will to save (1 Tim. 2:4) limited to those who sit in the pew each Sunday at a Catholic Mass? Though the Church’s role is integral to salvation as the only venue of (grace) salvation to the world, must one be a "formal member" to be saved?Or can those, who through no fault of their own, who do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience achieve eternal salvation?"
"Do you consider yourself what is generally known (though it may be a veritable misnomer) as a Feeneyite?"
and
"Again, isn’t the personal relationship very important? Furthermore, does the Church dictate to us who is saved and who is not saved?"
Here is my response:
I would not use Romans 2:14-16 as another 'alternative gate' to salvation. Haydock patristic commentary clearly sees the conscience-driven actions of the pagans as 'dispositions' that allow God to give them 'some supernatural graces, by which they come to know, and believe, that he will reward their souls for eternity. Such, says S. Chrysostom, were the dispositions of Melchisedech, Job, Cornelius the Centurion, etc.' So here are the righteous pagans, who should be clearly distinguished from those listed in verse 12 'whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law' and Haydock explains that their guilt consists of acting 'against their reason and conscience'.
I'd like to stop at verse 12 a bit to explain my take. No, I'm not a Feeneyite since I did not gain insight into the dogma of the EENS from Fr. Feeney but from the Council of Florence. At the Council, Eugene IV not only made the famous statement:"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives;" but also expounded the reason in the next line:
"the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church"
Please note that "only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation". My concern is that the idea of 'baptism of desire' points to extraordinary means of salvation at the expense of the ordinary means,i.e. sacraments. While Fr. Feeney focused on the importance of baptism, I think the key issue is the other sacraments, in particular the Communion and penance.
In another discussion I brought up another quote from Pope Eugene IV, which elucidates the necessity of sacramental penance for salvation:Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to Hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
From the above we may infer that, while baptism takes away the stain of original sin, valid confession is needed for taking away mortal sin. To my knowledge, valid confession is not available in Judaism, Islam or Protestantism.
I'm not a Feeneyite, nor am I a Jansenist, since I do acknowledge the Church's teaching on the validity of an act of perfect contrition, the availability of grace for the true seekers of God, and the fact that invincible grace need not damn anyone. I will quote Bishop Hay who in 1787 wrote the following in his book "Sincere Christian" on the topic of invincible ignorance:
"Q. 14. But can none who are in heresy, and in invincible ignorance of the Truth be saved?A. God forbid we should say so! All the above reasons only prove that if they live and die in that state they will not be saved, and that according to the present providence they cannot be saved? but the great God is able to take them out of that state, to cure even their ignorance though invincible to them tin their present situation, to bring them to the knowledge of the True Faith, and to the communion of His Holy Church, and in consequence of that to salvation; and we further add, that if He be pleased, of his infinite mercy, to save any who are at present in invincible ignorance of the Truth, in order to act consistently with Himself, and with His Holy Word [for, indeed, God is bound by His Word; God cannot deceive us], He will undoubtedly bring them to the union of His Holy Church for that purpose, before they die."
This agrees perfectly with Romans 2:14-16. Haydock quotes John Chrysostom who believed that the righteous pagans would be granted supernatural graces NOT TO be left in invincible ignorance. Cornelius was a good example: St. Peter realized that "God is no respecter of persons but in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35) This shows that the Holy Spirit works outside the visible confines of the Church, against Quesnel, Baius and Jansenius. However, note Peter's conclusion--"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 10:47-48). Should I add that Peter needed the revelation from the Holy Ghost through Cornelius to see that pagans, despite being Jewish proselytes--'God-fearing'--should not be denied baptism if they DESIRED one?
Do I need to go into detail in 1 Timothy 2:4? It's not necessary to resort to the argument ad absurdum as to God's will only for those attending the Mass. Again, the EENS is not about the predestination--yes, God wills all to be saved, and Jesus' work applies to all, but as Haydock comments on this verse, the obstacle is not with God, but with people: "if they are not saved, it is by their own fault, by their not corresponding with the graces offered, it is because they resist the Holy Ghost" (p. 1566).
I'm not a theologian, just a layman, but just by browsing a traditional dogmatic theology manual, I noticed that the 'graces' to which Haydock refers must be so-called gratia excitans which should lead one to the recognition of sin and doing well. However, one cannot be saved without supernatural SANCTIFYING grace, which is a state! How do we receive sanctifying grace--in the Church through the absolution of mortal sins in the sacrament of penance, available through a valid priest and 'effective' only in the Catholic Church.The above brings me to the favorite charge against the EENS--that it leads to the judgment on the non-Catholics' damnation. We both know that we are not to judge, but we know what the ordinary means of salvation are since they have been used by the saints, and there are only canonized saints in the Catholic Church!
True, the Church does not tell us who is not saved--except it passes a judgment on heresy and schism through excommunication and it recognizes the saints. This is done for our own good so that we would know which way to take.
No-one knows when the Lord returns, yet we are repeatedly admonished to 'be ready'. No-one knows the number of the saved, yet we are told that 'many are called but few are chosen'. I once raised in a forum the issue of charity--since we know that as Catholics we are going to enter into heaven with greatest difficulty, and this only through application of the sacraments and assistance of the saints, how will those outside manage? Should we not alert them to the possibility of damnation, just as we should consider this. The greatest, Moses, David, St. Peter and St. Paul trembled about their salvation--contrary to impious Calvin who spoke of the assurance of perseverance of the saints! Contrary to him speaks Martin von Cochem in "Four Last Things" in the chapter on 'The Number of the Saved' (page 216 of Benziger Edition of 1899):
"Since there are so many adversaries who assail us, adversaries so crafty, so strong, so fierce, who can deem himself sure of victory? It is little short of a miracle if one escapes the clutches of foes so numerous and so formidable. Who can hope in his own strength to triumph over them? We must needs acknowledge that all who have overcome the evil enemy, the evil world, and their own evil proclivities, have been strengthened by God with his special assistance. Hence we see how toilsome and laborious work it is to win heaven; and we learn the truth of Our Lord's words, when He said 'The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away'"
Now, does this picture correspond to Mr. Sungenis' concept of a believer even unaware of being saved? How are we to believe that sacraments can be dispensed with in the process of 'crucifying our selves'? Since when 'the world' has become a safe place where the righteous may grow untarnished by the temptations? This certainly does not square with the apostolic teaching since St. Peter's first sermon in which he left no alternative to the fellow Jews but to repent and be baptized.
Hence I see no point in weakening the traditional teaching of the importance of sacraments to the spiritual life by conceding that 'somehow' it's possible to grow in relationship with God and not be called into the communion with the Catholic Church. Any cases, please?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)