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.)
Showing posts with label non-Catholics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label non-Catholics. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Rev Muller on Pius IX and Invincible Ignorance
Rev. Muller goes on in section 8 of Chapter 5 of The Catholic Dogma to prove that invincible ignorance is not a means of salvation, and while it does not damn someone, it does not save one either:
"But, suppose," some one will say, "a person, in his inculpable ignorance, believes that he is on the right road to heaven, though he is not a Catholic; he tries his best to live up to the dictates of his conscience. Now, should he die in that state of belief, he would, it seems, be condemned without his fault. We can understand that God is not bound to give heaven to anybody, but, as he is just, he certainly cannot condemn anybody without his fault."
Whatever question may be made still in regard to the great truth in question is sufficiently answered in the explanation already given of this great truth. For the sake of greater clearness, however, we will answer a few more questions. In the answers to these questions we shall be obliged to repeat what has already been said.
Now, as to the question just proposed, we answer with St. Thomas and St. Augustine: "There are many things which a man is obliged to do, but which he cannot do without the help of divine grace: as, for instance, to love God and his neighbor, and to believe the articles of faith; but he can do all this with the help of grace; and `to whomsoever God gives his grace he gives it out of divine mercy; and to whomsoever he does not give it, he refuses it out of divine justice, in punishment of sin committed, or at least in punishment of original sin, as St. Augustine says. (Lib. de correptione et gratia, c. 5 et 6; Sum. 22. q. ii. art. v.) "And the ignorance of those things of salvation, the knowledge of which men did not care to have is without doubt, a sin for them; but for those who were not able to acquire such knowledge, the want of it is a punishment for their sins," says St. Augustine; hence both are justly condemned, and neither the one nor the other has a just excuse for being lost." (Epist. ad Sixtum, Edit. Maur. 194, cap. vi., n. 27.)
Moreover, a person who wants to go East, but, by an innocent mistake, gets on a train going West, will, as soon as he finds out his mistake, get off at the next station, and take a train that goes East. In like manner, a person who walked on a road that he, in his inculpable ignorance, believed was the true road to heaven, must leave that road, as soon as he finds out his mistake, and inquire for the true road to heaven. God, in his infinite mercy, will not fail to make him find out, in due time, the true road to heaven, if he corresponds to his grace. Hence we asked the following question in our Familiar Explanation:
"What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity to know better?
To this question we give the following answer: "Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in his infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance." (St. Thomas Aquinas.)
S. O. remarks about this answer, "that the author is not theologically correct, for no one will ever be punished through, by, or because of inculpable ignorance." In these words, S. O. impudently imputes to us what we never have asserted, namely, that a man will be damned on account of his inculpable ignorance." From the fact that a person tries to live up to the dictates of his conscience, and cannot sin against the true religion on account of being invincibly ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, making thus invincible ignorance a means of salvation. This conclusion is contra "latius hos quam praemissae." To give an example. The Rev. Nicholas Russo, S. J., professor of philosophy in Boston College, says in his book, The true Religion and its dogmas:—
"This good faith being supposed, we say that such a Christian (he means a baptized Protestant) is in a way a member of the Catholic Church. Ignorance alone is the cause of his not acknowledging the authority of his true mother. The Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger; she calls him her child; she presses him to her maternal heart; through other hands she prepares him to shine in the kingdom of heaven. Yes, the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of heaven before this Christian; invincible ignorance will, before the tribunal of the just God, ensure the pardon of his errors against faith; and, if nothing else be wanting, heaven will be, his home for eternity." We have already sufficiently refuted these false assertions, and we have quoted them, not for the purpose of refuting them, but for the purpose of denying emphatically what follows after these false assertions, namely: "i>This is the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX.. In his Allocution of December 9, 1854, we read the following words: "It is indeed of faith that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church; that this Church is the one ark of salvation; that he who has not entered it will perish in the deluge. But, on the other hand, it is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it."
Now, in which of these words of Pope Pius IX. is any of the above false assertions of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., sanctioned? In which words does Pius IX. say that a Protestant in good faith is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? Does not Pius IX. teach quite the contrary in the following words, which the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., quotes pp. 163-166?
"Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church—which, from the days of Our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles, has ever exercised, by its lawful pastors, and still does exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord—will easily satisfy himself that none of these societies, singly nor all together, are in any way or form that one Catholic Church which our Lord founded and built, and which he chose should be; and that he cannot by any means say that these societies are members or parts of that Church, since they are visibly separated from Catholic unity...
"Let all those, then, who do not profess the unity and truth of the Catholic Church, avail themselves of the opportunity of this (Vatican) Council, in which the Catholic Church, to which their forefathers belonged, affords a new proof of her close unity and her invincible vitality, and let them satisfy the longings of their hearts, and liberate themselves from that state in which they cannot have any assurance of their own salvation. Let them unceasingly offer fervent prayers to the God of Mercy, that he will throw down the wall of separation, that he will scatter the darkness of error, and that he will lead them back to the Holy Mother Church, in whose bosom their fathers found the salutary pastures of life, in whom alone the whole doctrine of Jesus Christ is preserved and handed down, and the mysteries of heavenly grace dispensed."
Now does not Pius IX. say in these words, very plainly and distinctly, that the members of all other religious societies are visibly separated from Catholic unity; that in this state of separation they cannot have salvation; that by fervent prayer, they should beseech God to throw down the wall of separation, to scatter the darkness of error, and lead them to the Mother Church, in which alone salvation is found." And in his Allocution to the Cardinals held Dec. 17, 1847, Pius IX. says: "i>Let those, therefore, who wish to be saved, come to the pillar and the ground of faith, which is the Church; let them come to the true Church of Christ, which, in her Bishops, and in the Roman Pontiff, the Chief Head of all, has the succession of apostolical Authority, which has never been interrupted, which has never counted anything of greater importance than to preach, and by all means to keep, and defend the doctrine proclaimed by the Apostles at Christ's command . . . . . . We shall never at any time abstain from any cares or labors that, by the grace of Christ himself, we may bring those who are ignorant, and who are going astray, to THIS ONLY ROAD OF TRUTH AND SALVATION." Now does not Pius IX. teach most clearly in these words that the ignorant cannot be saved by their ignorance, but that, in order to be saved, they must come to the only road of truth and salvation, which is the Roman Catholic Church?
Again, does not Pius IX. most emphatically declare, in the words quoted above by the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., that "It is indeed of faith, that NO ONE can be saved out of the Apostolic Roman Church?" How, then, we ask, can the Rev. N. Russo, S. J. say in truth, that a Protestant in good faith, such as he described, is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? that the Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger? that she calls him her child, presses him to her maternal heart, prepares him, through other hands, to shine in the kingdom of God? that the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of heaven before this Christian, etc.? How can this professor of philosophy at the Boston College assert all this, whilst Pius IX teaches the very contrary? And mark especially the scandalous assertion of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., namely: "This our opinion is the doctrine which has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX." To prove his scandalous assertion, he quotes the following words of Pius IX: "It is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it." If, in these words, Pius IX. says what no one calls in question, that invincible ignorance of the true religion excuses a Protestant from the sin of heresy, does Pius IX. thereby teach that such invincibly ignorance saves such a Protestant? Does he teach that invincible ignorance supplies all that is necessary for salvation—all that you can have only in the true faith? How could the Professor of philosophy at the Jesuit College in Boston draw such a false and scandalous conclusion from premises in which it is not contained? Pius IX. has, on many occasions, condemned such liberal opinions. Read his Allocution to the Cardinals, held Dec. 17, 1847, in which he expresses his indignation against all those who had said that he had sanctioned such perverse opinions. "In our times," says he, "many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith direct their efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions. But quite recently—we shudder to say it, certain men have not hesitated to slander us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us."
Mark well, Pius IX. uttered these solemn words against "certain men," whom he calls the enemies of the Catholic Faith,—he means liberal minded Catholics and priests, as is evident from other Allocutions, in which he says that he has condemned not less than forty times their perverse opinions about religion. Is it not, for instance, a perverse and monstrous opinion, when the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., says: "The spiritual element (of the Church) comprises all the graces and virtues that are the foundation of the spiritual life; it includes the gifts of the Holy Ghost; in other words, it is what theologians call the soul of the Church. (Now follows the monstrous opinion) This mysterious soul is not limited by the bounds of the exterior organization (of the Church); it can go far beyond; exist even in the midst of schism and heresy unconsciously professed, and bind to our Lord hearts that are connected by no exterior ties with the visible Body of the Church. This union with the soul of the Church is essential to salvation; so essential that without it none can be saved. But the necessity of belonging likewise to the Body of the Church, though a real one, may in certain cases offer no obstacle to salvation. This happens whenever invincible ignorance so shrouds a man's intellectual vision, that he ceases to be responsible before God for the light which he does not see"? The refutation of this monstrous opinion is sufficiently given in all we have said before. The very Allocution of Pius IX., from which the Rev. N. Russo quotes, is a direct condemnation of such monstrous opinions. (See Preface)
Now these modern would-be theologians are not ashamed to assure us most solemnly that their opinions are the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and yet they cannot quote one proof from Holy Scripture, or from the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, to give the least support to their opinions.
The Rev. N. Russo and S. O. seem not to see the difference between saying: Inculpable ignorance will not save a man, and inculpable ignorance will not damn a man. Each assertion is correct, and yet there is a great difference between the two. It will be an act of charity to enlighten them on the point in question.
Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of sanctifying grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Saviour, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. "Invincible ignorance," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "is a punishment for sin." (De Infid. q. x., art. 1.) It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation.
But if we say that inculpable ignorance cannot save a man, we thereby do not say that invincible ignorance damns a man. Far from it. To say, invincible ignorance is no means of salvation, is one thing; and to say, invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation is another. To maintain the latter, would be wrong, for inculpable ignorance of the fundamental principles of faith excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy; because such invincible ignorance, being only a simple involuntary privation, is no sin.
Hence Pius IX. said "that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and thoughts of man will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault."
"But, suppose," some one will say, "a person, in his inculpable ignorance, believes that he is on the right road to heaven, though he is not a Catholic; he tries his best to live up to the dictates of his conscience. Now, should he die in that state of belief, he would, it seems, be condemned without his fault. We can understand that God is not bound to give heaven to anybody, but, as he is just, he certainly cannot condemn anybody without his fault."
Whatever question may be made still in regard to the great truth in question is sufficiently answered in the explanation already given of this great truth. For the sake of greater clearness, however, we will answer a few more questions. In the answers to these questions we shall be obliged to repeat what has already been said.
Now, as to the question just proposed, we answer with St. Thomas and St. Augustine: "There are many things which a man is obliged to do, but which he cannot do without the help of divine grace: as, for instance, to love God and his neighbor, and to believe the articles of faith; but he can do all this with the help of grace; and `to whomsoever God gives his grace he gives it out of divine mercy; and to whomsoever he does not give it, he refuses it out of divine justice, in punishment of sin committed, or at least in punishment of original sin, as St. Augustine says. (Lib. de correptione et gratia, c. 5 et 6; Sum. 22. q. ii. art. v.) "And the ignorance of those things of salvation, the knowledge of which men did not care to have is without doubt, a sin for them; but for those who were not able to acquire such knowledge, the want of it is a punishment for their sins," says St. Augustine; hence both are justly condemned, and neither the one nor the other has a just excuse for being lost." (Epist. ad Sixtum, Edit. Maur. 194, cap. vi., n. 27.)
Moreover, a person who wants to go East, but, by an innocent mistake, gets on a train going West, will, as soon as he finds out his mistake, get off at the next station, and take a train that goes East. In like manner, a person who walked on a road that he, in his inculpable ignorance, believed was the true road to heaven, must leave that road, as soon as he finds out his mistake, and inquire for the true road to heaven. God, in his infinite mercy, will not fail to make him find out, in due time, the true road to heaven, if he corresponds to his grace. Hence we asked the following question in our Familiar Explanation:
"What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity to know better?
To this question we give the following answer: "Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in his infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance." (St. Thomas Aquinas.)
S. O. remarks about this answer, "that the author is not theologically correct, for no one will ever be punished through, by, or because of inculpable ignorance." In these words, S. O. impudently imputes to us what we never have asserted, namely, that a man will be damned on account of his inculpable ignorance." From the fact that a person tries to live up to the dictates of his conscience, and cannot sin against the true religion on account of being invincibly ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, making thus invincible ignorance a means of salvation. This conclusion is contra "latius hos quam praemissae." To give an example. The Rev. Nicholas Russo, S. J., professor of philosophy in Boston College, says in his book, The true Religion and its dogmas:—
"This good faith being supposed, we say that such a Christian (he means a baptized Protestant) is in a way a member of the Catholic Church. Ignorance alone is the cause of his not acknowledging the authority of his true mother. The Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger; she calls him her child; she presses him to her maternal heart; through other hands she prepares him to shine in the kingdom of heaven. Yes, the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of heaven before this Christian; invincible ignorance will, before the tribunal of the just God, ensure the pardon of his errors against faith; and, if nothing else be wanting, heaven will be, his home for eternity." We have already sufficiently refuted these false assertions, and we have quoted them, not for the purpose of refuting them, but for the purpose of denying emphatically what follows after these false assertions, namely: "i>This is the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX.. In his Allocution of December 9, 1854, we read the following words: "It is indeed of faith that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church; that this Church is the one ark of salvation; that he who has not entered it will perish in the deluge. But, on the other hand, it is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it."
Now, in which of these words of Pope Pius IX. is any of the above false assertions of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., sanctioned? In which words does Pius IX. say that a Protestant in good faith is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? Does not Pius IX. teach quite the contrary in the following words, which the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., quotes pp. 163-166?
"Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church—which, from the days of Our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles, has ever exercised, by its lawful pastors, and still does exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord—will easily satisfy himself that none of these societies, singly nor all together, are in any way or form that one Catholic Church which our Lord founded and built, and which he chose should be; and that he cannot by any means say that these societies are members or parts of that Church, since they are visibly separated from Catholic unity...
"Let all those, then, who do not profess the unity and truth of the Catholic Church, avail themselves of the opportunity of this (Vatican) Council, in which the Catholic Church, to which their forefathers belonged, affords a new proof of her close unity and her invincible vitality, and let them satisfy the longings of their hearts, and liberate themselves from that state in which they cannot have any assurance of their own salvation. Let them unceasingly offer fervent prayers to the God of Mercy, that he will throw down the wall of separation, that he will scatter the darkness of error, and that he will lead them back to the Holy Mother Church, in whose bosom their fathers found the salutary pastures of life, in whom alone the whole doctrine of Jesus Christ is preserved and handed down, and the mysteries of heavenly grace dispensed."
Now does not Pius IX. say in these words, very plainly and distinctly, that the members of all other religious societies are visibly separated from Catholic unity; that in this state of separation they cannot have salvation; that by fervent prayer, they should beseech God to throw down the wall of separation, to scatter the darkness of error, and lead them to the Mother Church, in which alone salvation is found." And in his Allocution to the Cardinals held Dec. 17, 1847, Pius IX. says: "i>Let those, therefore, who wish to be saved, come to the pillar and the ground of faith, which is the Church; let them come to the true Church of Christ, which, in her Bishops, and in the Roman Pontiff, the Chief Head of all, has the succession of apostolical Authority, which has never been interrupted, which has never counted anything of greater importance than to preach, and by all means to keep, and defend the doctrine proclaimed by the Apostles at Christ's command . . . . . . We shall never at any time abstain from any cares or labors that, by the grace of Christ himself, we may bring those who are ignorant, and who are going astray, to THIS ONLY ROAD OF TRUTH AND SALVATION." Now does not Pius IX. teach most clearly in these words that the ignorant cannot be saved by their ignorance, but that, in order to be saved, they must come to the only road of truth and salvation, which is the Roman Catholic Church?
Again, does not Pius IX. most emphatically declare, in the words quoted above by the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., that "It is indeed of faith, that NO ONE can be saved out of the Apostolic Roman Church?" How, then, we ask, can the Rev. N. Russo, S. J. say in truth, that a Protestant in good faith, such as he described, is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? that the Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger? that she calls him her child, presses him to her maternal heart, prepares him, through other hands, to shine in the kingdom of God? that the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of heaven before this Christian, etc.? How can this professor of philosophy at the Boston College assert all this, whilst Pius IX teaches the very contrary? And mark especially the scandalous assertion of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., namely: "This our opinion is the doctrine which has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX." To prove his scandalous assertion, he quotes the following words of Pius IX: "It is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it." If, in these words, Pius IX. says what no one calls in question, that invincible ignorance of the true religion excuses a Protestant from the sin of heresy, does Pius IX. thereby teach that such invincibly ignorance saves such a Protestant? Does he teach that invincible ignorance supplies all that is necessary for salvation—all that you can have only in the true faith? How could the Professor of philosophy at the Jesuit College in Boston draw such a false and scandalous conclusion from premises in which it is not contained? Pius IX. has, on many occasions, condemned such liberal opinions. Read his Allocution to the Cardinals, held Dec. 17, 1847, in which he expresses his indignation against all those who had said that he had sanctioned such perverse opinions. "In our times," says he, "many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith direct their efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions. But quite recently—we shudder to say it, certain men have not hesitated to slander us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us."
Mark well, Pius IX. uttered these solemn words against "certain men," whom he calls the enemies of the Catholic Faith,—he means liberal minded Catholics and priests, as is evident from other Allocutions, in which he says that he has condemned not less than forty times their perverse opinions about religion. Is it not, for instance, a perverse and monstrous opinion, when the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., says: "The spiritual element (of the Church) comprises all the graces and virtues that are the foundation of the spiritual life; it includes the gifts of the Holy Ghost; in other words, it is what theologians call the soul of the Church. (Now follows the monstrous opinion) This mysterious soul is not limited by the bounds of the exterior organization (of the Church); it can go far beyond; exist even in the midst of schism and heresy unconsciously professed, and bind to our Lord hearts that are connected by no exterior ties with the visible Body of the Church. This union with the soul of the Church is essential to salvation; so essential that without it none can be saved. But the necessity of belonging likewise to the Body of the Church, though a real one, may in certain cases offer no obstacle to salvation. This happens whenever invincible ignorance so shrouds a man's intellectual vision, that he ceases to be responsible before God for the light which he does not see"? The refutation of this monstrous opinion is sufficiently given in all we have said before. The very Allocution of Pius IX., from which the Rev. N. Russo quotes, is a direct condemnation of such monstrous opinions. (See Preface)
Now these modern would-be theologians are not ashamed to assure us most solemnly that their opinions are the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and yet they cannot quote one proof from Holy Scripture, or from the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, to give the least support to their opinions.
The Rev. N. Russo and S. O. seem not to see the difference between saying: Inculpable ignorance will not save a man, and inculpable ignorance will not damn a man. Each assertion is correct, and yet there is a great difference between the two. It will be an act of charity to enlighten them on the point in question.
Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of sanctifying grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Saviour, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. "Invincible ignorance," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "is a punishment for sin." (De Infid. q. x., art. 1.) It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation.
But if we say that inculpable ignorance cannot save a man, we thereby do not say that invincible ignorance damns a man. Far from it. To say, invincible ignorance is no means of salvation, is one thing; and to say, invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation is another. To maintain the latter, would be wrong, for inculpable ignorance of the fundamental principles of faith excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy; because such invincible ignorance, being only a simple involuntary privation, is no sin.
Hence Pius IX. said "that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and thoughts of man will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault."
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Why Do Non-Catholics Read the Church's Position Better Than Do the Vatican II Apologists?
Well, the debate at http://rcpstudy.blogspot.com/2007/05/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html brought some fruit. It was also a chance for me to reflect on the problem that the apologists of Vatican II have with the strict interpretation of the dogma.
Wendy said...
Well said Peter Albert. Kudos! You are obviously and learned man and well versed with the Traditions and documents (as well as Councils) of the Church. Please continue to post here. Thanks again!
July 24, 2007 10:39 AM
Peter Albert said...
Dear Wendy, no, I'm just a beginner in Catholic theology, but I've spent too much of my time searching for the truth outside of the Catholic Church to be satisfied with sloppy use of terms or easy labelling. I don't care if it's Mr. Sungenis who needs to be refuted if he fails to address key issues of salvation, instead unravelling the dogma so as to divide the Church! I'm sorry but it seems to me that many of the critics of the strict interpretation of the EENS would rather anathematize their fellow Catholics than tell the non-Catholics openly that they are lost if they do not use the Catholic Church's means of salvation.
You know, I spent the last couple of days reviewing the reactions to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith's recent explanation in the blogosphere. It is very illuminating that 90% of the non-Catholics got the message that the Cathollic Church insists on the traditional message of exclusive salvation, while 90% of the Catholic bloggers went an extra mile to disabuse their non-Catholic friends of even a hint that they should accept such a 'radical' interpretation...
In my blog http://breviary.blogspot.com I listed all the resources and blog references to EENS that I could find. I did this because I found this amazing that the necessity to convert to the Catholic Church (even if we grant that one is culpable if one rejects that option knowing this) was consistently swept under the carpet of PC terms. In my first post, I admitted that I would not have returned to the Catholic faith if I had not seen the absurdity of universal salvation--that God did not care about people's ideas about Him or that He could be worshipped any way since what mattered was either personal righteousness or even worse the believer's feelings towards God. If I had believed that God was a sentimental 'good uncle' I would not have had a clue that He required to be glorified and that my sins offended Him as the Lord.Dear Wendy, don't let anyone corner you with the label of a 'heretic' or a 'Feeneyite'--as a lay Catholic you deserve to be served the wealth of the Catholic dogma that is our standard for knowing what to believe. The Catholic dogma is immutable and just as the laws of physics, mathematics or nature are immune to any politicking, so are the infallible pronouncements of the Popes and Councils. At another forum, I was served a ridiculous (though dangerous) argument that the Council of Florence's definitions of the Church were aimed to settle contemporary issues--on those grounds for instance some claim that the Protestants are not covered by Eugene IV's statements on 'schismatics'--since those concerned only those who had separated from the Church by that time.
To reiterate Augustine, if it wasn't for the infallible pronouncements of the Church, I wouldn't know what to believe. For the above reasons, I'm not going to engage in the recent debates as to how 'conservative' the recent declarations of the Vatican are--most of them unfortunately are worded so ambiguously that they allow multiple interpretations. And I'm not saying that this tendency has started with Vatican II--in fact the 'aggiornamento' of John XXIII dates back to the liberal currents of thoughts which were well described in the Syllabus and parts of which were condemned under the terms 'modernism' and 'Americanism'.
Frankly, I might be among the few who miss the times when the fundamental questions of the Christian faith were matters of theological debates and so helped clarify the understanding of the Church. How far more concerned with the dogma was the Church at the time of Nicea, Ephesus or Chalcedon? I'm here fighting the battle for revisiting of the Church's teaching on its means of grace, but we need to seriously attack the reemerging Pelagianism and forms of Arianism.
Thank you once again, Wendy, for your kind words. I hope that this more personal intervention should serve as a sort of introduction as to why I believe what I believe.
Wendy said...
Well said Peter Albert. Kudos! You are obviously and learned man and well versed with the Traditions and documents (as well as Councils) of the Church. Please continue to post here. Thanks again!
July 24, 2007 10:39 AM
Peter Albert said...
Dear Wendy, no, I'm just a beginner in Catholic theology, but I've spent too much of my time searching for the truth outside of the Catholic Church to be satisfied with sloppy use of terms or easy labelling. I don't care if it's Mr. Sungenis who needs to be refuted if he fails to address key issues of salvation, instead unravelling the dogma so as to divide the Church! I'm sorry but it seems to me that many of the critics of the strict interpretation of the EENS would rather anathematize their fellow Catholics than tell the non-Catholics openly that they are lost if they do not use the Catholic Church's means of salvation.
You know, I spent the last couple of days reviewing the reactions to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith's recent explanation in the blogosphere. It is very illuminating that 90% of the non-Catholics got the message that the Cathollic Church insists on the traditional message of exclusive salvation, while 90% of the Catholic bloggers went an extra mile to disabuse their non-Catholic friends of even a hint that they should accept such a 'radical' interpretation...
In my blog http://breviary.blogspot.com I listed all the resources and blog references to EENS that I could find. I did this because I found this amazing that the necessity to convert to the Catholic Church (even if we grant that one is culpable if one rejects that option knowing this) was consistently swept under the carpet of PC terms. In my first post, I admitted that I would not have returned to the Catholic faith if I had not seen the absurdity of universal salvation--that God did not care about people's ideas about Him or that He could be worshipped any way since what mattered was either personal righteousness or even worse the believer's feelings towards God. If I had believed that God was a sentimental 'good uncle' I would not have had a clue that He required to be glorified and that my sins offended Him as the Lord.Dear Wendy, don't let anyone corner you with the label of a 'heretic' or a 'Feeneyite'--as a lay Catholic you deserve to be served the wealth of the Catholic dogma that is our standard for knowing what to believe. The Catholic dogma is immutable and just as the laws of physics, mathematics or nature are immune to any politicking, so are the infallible pronouncements of the Popes and Councils. At another forum, I was served a ridiculous (though dangerous) argument that the Council of Florence's definitions of the Church were aimed to settle contemporary issues--on those grounds for instance some claim that the Protestants are not covered by Eugene IV's statements on 'schismatics'--since those concerned only those who had separated from the Church by that time.
To reiterate Augustine, if it wasn't for the infallible pronouncements of the Church, I wouldn't know what to believe. For the above reasons, I'm not going to engage in the recent debates as to how 'conservative' the recent declarations of the Vatican are--most of them unfortunately are worded so ambiguously that they allow multiple interpretations. And I'm not saying that this tendency has started with Vatican II--in fact the 'aggiornamento' of John XXIII dates back to the liberal currents of thoughts which were well described in the Syllabus and parts of which were condemned under the terms 'modernism' and 'Americanism'.
Frankly, I might be among the few who miss the times when the fundamental questions of the Christian faith were matters of theological debates and so helped clarify the understanding of the Church. How far more concerned with the dogma was the Church at the time of Nicea, Ephesus or Chalcedon? I'm here fighting the battle for revisiting of the Church's teaching on its means of grace, but we need to seriously attack the reemerging Pelagianism and forms of Arianism.
Thank you once again, Wendy, for your kind words. I hope that this more personal intervention should serve as a sort of introduction as to why I believe what I believe.
Monday, July 23, 2007
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"
The Church's Mandate to Convert the Jews
Last Thursday, the Jewish organization Anti-Defamation League issued a statement in which it "welcomed the comments of a senior Vatican official that the Good Friday Latin prayer to convert Jews could be removed from the re-introduced Latin liturgy." This statement referred to the position taken by the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone who had been reported to say that the substitution of the prayer " would resolve all the problems."
Further, the ADL intimated that "the Good Friday Latin prayer to convert Jews (...) contradicts 40 years of evolving Catholic teachings about the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people, and the end of efforts to baptize Jews".
What prayer could cause so much concern in the leading organization that otherwise is engaged in exposing cases of anti-Semitism or denial of Holocaust? Here it is, taken from The Catholic Missal, being a Translation of the New Missale Romanum arranged for daily use by very rev. Charles J. Callan and very rev. John A. McHugh, published by Benziger in 1943:
"Let us pray also for the perfidious Jews, that our Lord God would withdraw the veil from their hearts, that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. Almighty and eternal God, who deniest not thy mercy even to the perfidious Jews, hear our prayers offered for the blindness of this people, that by acknowledging the light of thy truth, which is Christ, they may be freed from their darkness."
The Church prays that the Jews who failed to recognize Jesus as the Messiah would 'be free from their darkness'. Gospel of John demonstrates this attitude of the Jews of the day in the dialogues that they had with Jesus when he stated that he was the light of the world. The Lord concluded "I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind." (9:39)
St. Paul observes that the majority of his compatriots have been blinded to the truth of Jesus' messiahship. In the letter to Romans he cites prophet Isaiah to describe the state of the nation in the period between the death of Jesus Christ and the destruction of the Jerusalem temple:
"God gave them a spirit of deep sleep, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day." (11:8)
But Paul has never lost his hope that just as God had given him the grace to see, the other Jews "if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." (Romans 11:23) Did he remain indifferent to the fate of those that were outside the Church? Far from this, he cried out that his "heart's desire and prayer to God on their behalf is for salvation". He recognized that while they were zealous for God, their zeal lacked discernment. (10:2.3) So Paul expressed his greatest anguish and like Moses, he was willing to lose his salvation "for the sake of (his) brothers, (his) kin according to the flesh". (9:1)
Let us follow St. Paul's example and pray fervently for the salvation of our Jewish brethren that is only possible within the Catholic Church. Also let us remind other Catholics of the Church's unfailing mandate to enlighten those who remain in the darkness.
Further, the ADL intimated that "the Good Friday Latin prayer to convert Jews (...) contradicts 40 years of evolving Catholic teachings about the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people, and the end of efforts to baptize Jews".
What prayer could cause so much concern in the leading organization that otherwise is engaged in exposing cases of anti-Semitism or denial of Holocaust? Here it is, taken from The Catholic Missal, being a Translation of the New Missale Romanum arranged for daily use by very rev. Charles J. Callan and very rev. John A. McHugh, published by Benziger in 1943:
"Let us pray also for the perfidious Jews, that our Lord God would withdraw the veil from their hearts, that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. Almighty and eternal God, who deniest not thy mercy even to the perfidious Jews, hear our prayers offered for the blindness of this people, that by acknowledging the light of thy truth, which is Christ, they may be freed from their darkness."
The Church prays that the Jews who failed to recognize Jesus as the Messiah would 'be free from their darkness'. Gospel of John demonstrates this attitude of the Jews of the day in the dialogues that they had with Jesus when he stated that he was the light of the world. The Lord concluded "I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind." (9:39)
St. Paul observes that the majority of his compatriots have been blinded to the truth of Jesus' messiahship. In the letter to Romans he cites prophet Isaiah to describe the state of the nation in the period between the death of Jesus Christ and the destruction of the Jerusalem temple:
"God gave them a spirit of deep sleep, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day." (11:8)
But Paul has never lost his hope that just as God had given him the grace to see, the other Jews "if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." (Romans 11:23) Did he remain indifferent to the fate of those that were outside the Church? Far from this, he cried out that his "heart's desire and prayer to God on their behalf is for salvation". He recognized that while they were zealous for God, their zeal lacked discernment. (10:2.3) So Paul expressed his greatest anguish and like Moses, he was willing to lose his salvation "for the sake of (his) brothers, (his) kin according to the flesh". (9:1)
Let us follow St. Paul's example and pray fervently for the salvation of our Jewish brethren that is only possible within the Catholic Church. Also let us remind other Catholics of the Church's unfailing mandate to enlighten those who remain in the darkness.
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)