Let us mark well: To assert that acts of divine faith, hope, and charity are possible out of the Catholic Church is a direct denial of the article of faith: There is positively no salvation out of the Catholic Church; for, on account of these acts, God unites himself with the soul in time and eternity. If these acts, then, were possible out of the Catholic Church, there would be salvation out of the Catholic Church, to say which is a direct denial of the above article of faith, and therefore the assertion is heretical.
"A theologian," says St. Augustine, “who is humble, will never teach anything as true Catholic doctrine, unless he is perfectly sure of the truth which he asserts. If he is corrected in anything in which he erred, he thanks for the correction, because his only desire is to know the truth." (Epist. ad S. Hier. 73 n. 1.)
He hates novelties—Animus ab omni novitate alienus et antiquitatis amans. What he tries to assert and to defend is the pure doctrine of faith contained in Holy Scripture and Tradition. True Catholic doctrine, says Tertullian, is easily distinguished from false doctrine by the following rule: "Manifestetur id esse dominicum et verum, quod sit prius traditum; id autem extraneum et falsum, quod sit posterius immissum." (Lib. de Praescrip. cap. 31. Ed. Rig. 1675, p. 213.) A doctrine which has been taught and believed from the beginning is true Catholic doctrine; but any other doctrine is false.
Hence St. Paul admonishes St. Timothy, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoid the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called." (Chapt. vi. 20.)
"Vocum, id est, dogmatum, rerum, sententiarum novitates, quae sunt vetustati et antiquitati contrariae, quae si recipiantur, necesse est ut fides beatorum Patrum, aut tota, aut certe magna ex parte violetur. (Vincentius Lirinensis, Commonit., cap. 24.)
What has been believed by all the faithful at all times and everywhere, is truly Catholic doctrine. Any doctrines that are either wholly or at least very much opposed to the faith of the holy Fathers of the Church, are novel teachings, which are to be avoided. The article of faith reads not, "Out of the soul of the Church there is no salvation;" it reads, "Out of the Church (consisting of Body and Soul) there is positively no salvation for any one."
Hence rest assured that, as no one will let you have a precious article for counterfeit money, neither will Almighty God let you have heaven for serving him in a counterfeit religion by which he is greatly insulted and which he has most strictly forbidden, and which St. Paul and the Church have most solemnly accursed.
Such is, and such has always been the faith of the Church. It would be endless to collect all the testimonies of the Fathers of the Church on this subject. Let a few suffice, as a sample of the whole. St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, and disciple of the Apostles, in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, says: "Those who make a separation shall not inherit the kingdom of God." St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, and martyr in the second age, says: "The Church is the gate of life, but all the others are thieves and robbers, and therefore to be avoided." (De Haer., lib. i. c. 3.)
St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, and martyr about the middle of the third age, says, "The house of God is but one, and no one can have salvation but in the Church." (Epist. 62, alias 4.) And in his book on the unity of the Church, he says: "He cannot have God for his father who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was out of the ark of Noe, then he who is out of the Church may also escape." So much for these most primitive fathers.
In the fourth century, St. Chrysostom speaks thus: "We know that salvation belongs to the Church ALONE, and that no one can partake of Christ, nor be saved, out of the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith." (Hom. i. in Pasch.)
St. Augustine, in the same age, says: "The Catholic Church alone is the body of Christ; the Holy Ghost gives life to no one who is out of this body." (Epist. 185, § 50, Edit. Bened.) And in another place, "Salvation no one can have but in the Catholic Church. Out of the Catholic Church he may have anything but salvation. He may have honor, he may have baptism, he may have the Gospel, he may both believe and preach in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; but he can find salvation nowhere but in the Catholic Church." (Serm. ad. Caesariens. de Emerit.) Again, "In the Catholic Church," says he, "there are both good and bad. But those that are separated from her, as long as their opinions are opposite to hers, cannot be good. For though the conversation of some of them appears commendable, yet their very separation from the Church makes them bad, according to that of our Saviour (Luke, xi. 23), `He that is not with me is against is against me; and he that gathers not with me scattereth.'" —(Epist. 209, ad Feliciam.)
"Let a heretic," says St. Augustine, "confess Christ before men and shed his blood for his confession, it avails nothing to his salvation; for, thought he confessed Christ, he was put to death out of the Church." This is very true; any one who is put to death out of the Church could not have divine charity, for St. Paul says: "If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." (I Cor. xiii. 3.)
"Out of the Church there is no salvation;" Who can deny it? And therefore, whatever truths of the Church are held, out of the Church they avail nothing unto salvation. Those who are separated from the unity of the Church are not with Christ, but are against him, and he that gathereth not with him, scattereth. (Matt. xii. 30.) (Contra Donatistas.)
Lactantius, another great light of the fourth age, says: "It is the Catholic Church only which retains the true worship. This Church is the fountain of truth, it is the house of faith, it is the temple of God. If any one either comes not into this Church, or departs from it, his eternal salvation is desperate. No one must flatter himself obstinately, for his soul and salvation are at stake. "—(Divin. Instit., lib. iv., c. 30.)
St. Fulgentius, in the sixth century, speaks thus: "Hold most firmly, and without the least doubt, that neither any heretic or schismatic whosoever, who is baptized out of the Catholic Church, can partake at all of eternal life if, before the end of this life, he be not restored to the Catholic Church and incorporated therein." (Lib. de Fid., c. 37.) According to the first Canon of the Fourth Council of Carthage, the last of the articles which a Bishop-Elect is to be asked before his ordination is: "i>Credatne quod extra Ecclesiam nullus salvetur." Whether he believes that no one can be saved out of the Church.
We repeat the words of St. Alphonsus:—
"How grateful, then," he says "ought we to be to God for the gift of the true faith. How great is not the number of infidels, heretics, and schismatics. The world is full of them, and, if they die out of the Church, they will all be condemned, except infants who die after baptism." (Catech. first command., No. 10 and 19.) Because, as St. Augustine says, where there is no divine faith, there can be no divine charity, and where there is no divine charity, there can be no justifying or sanctifying grace, and to die without being in sanctifying grace is to be lost forever. (Lib. I. Serm. Dom. in monte, cap. v.)
All the Fathers of the Church have never hesitated to pronounce all those forever lost who die out of the Roman Catholic Church. “He who has not the Church for his mother," says St. Cyprian, “cannot have God for his Father;" and with him the Fathers in general say that, “as all who were not in the ark of Noe perished in the waters of the Deluge, so shall all perish who are out of the true Church." St. Augustine and the other bishops of Africa, at the Council of Zirta, A. D. 410, say: “Who-soever is separated from the Catholic Church, however commendable in his own opinion his life may be, he shall, for the very reason that he is separated from the union of Christ, not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Therefore, says St. Augustine, “a Christian ought to fear nothing so much as to be separated from the body of Christ (the Church). For, if he be separated from the body of Christ, he is not a member of Christ; if not a member of Christ, he is not quickened by his Spirit." (Tract. xxvii. in Joan., n. 6, Col. 1992, tom. iii.)
“To an enlightened Catholic," says Brownson, "there is something very shocking in the supposition that the article of faith, ‘out of the Church positively no one can be saved,’ should be only generally true, and therefore not an article of faith. All Catholic dogmas, if Catholic, are not only generally, but universally true, and admit no exception or restriction whatever. If men could come to Christ and be saved without the Church, or union with Christ in the Church, she would not be Catholic, and it would be false to call her the ‘One, Holy, Catholic Church,' as in the Creed."
“The Church is called Catholic," says the Catechism of the Council of Trent, “because all who desire eternal salvation must embrace and cling to her, like those who entered the ark, to escape perishing in the flood.”
Hence any one who explains away the dogma of exclusive salvation, denies, in principle, the Catholicity of the Church and the faith she holds and teaches.
Of every dogma of the Church is true what Pope Pius IX. has declared of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, namely: "wherefore, if any persons—which God forbid—shall presume to think in their hearts otherwise than we have defined, let them know that they are condemned by their own judgment, that they have suffered shipwreck in faith, and have fallen away from the unity of the Church." And in the definition of the dogma of the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff it is said: “But if any one—which God may avert!—presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema."
We must believe the truths of faith, not on account of human reasons, which are given in support and corroboration of any article of faith, but on account of the divine authority, which has revealed the articles of faith and proposes them for our belief by the Church. Any one who believes these articles only on account of human reasons, says St. Gregory, has no merit of his faith. (Homil. 26 in Evang.) The truths of the Gospel have been revealed by God, not to be understood, but to be believed. So, when we know that our Lord Jesus Christ has taught something and proposes it for our belief by his Church, we have to believe it most firmly and without the least doubt.
Showing posts with label permanence of the dogma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label permanence of the dogma. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
How to Use the Magisterium? Responding to a Critique
Predictably, the discussion with PJP shifted to the question of the validity of Vatican II documents and actually my first post "Where Is the Catholic Church" got quoted! Here follows the continuation of my exchange with the host of the blog Recapturing the Catholic Patrimony:
PJP said...
In your comments you question the validity of baptism of desire (which lies within the tradition of the Church as form of the sacrament of baptism) and you read/interpret the Council of Florence out of context (out of the corpus of Catholic thought and interpretation of the EENS dogma), placing such a statement above later statements reiterating EENS. It seems you have placed yourself as the arbiter and interpreter of the magisterium. This is quite dangerous, and I’m sincerely concerned for you.
You seem to frequently employ the term “exclusive salvation” as some “traditional message” or teaching of the Church. But is your rendition of exclusivism truly an aspect of Catholic Tradition? What do you mean by such a term? You state on your blog: “Let's face it: there are only two alternatives when it comes to salvation--either God accepts all the people of good will regardless of the faith they profess about Him or He accepts only those who hold the one acceptable faith. So it all comes down to the choice between universal salvation or exclusive salvation.” Peter Albert, this is what is known as a false dichotomy – a false option set up which is not consonant with Catholic thought. You do this again and again in your comments, making the salvation matter a black and white issue. Yes, ALL salvation come to the world through the Catholic Church (all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body, CCC 846), but the grace of salvation which emanates from the Church reaches people in both ordinary (sacraments) and extraordinary (ways unknown) means. The latter is unknown to us as noted in the Catechism no. 848. But in my estimation you probably don’t accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church…
Furthermore, you tell Wendy that she deserves to be “served the wealth of Catholic dogma.” I agree with you that all Catholics need to know and understand Catholic dogma and that much of it has been twisted or hidden today. Yet WHO is to do the serving? Are we to serve ourselves or are we to look to those God has placed in places of authority – the Magisterium (See. Matt. 23)? I’m not pushing for magisterial positivism (“Well, they say so, so it must be true.”), for I encourage a critical study of the faith in the context of Tradition, examining the current crisis we are in, but you’re taking the EENS matter into your own hands, divorcing in from the living magisterium of Christ’s Church.
What do you think about the Holy Office’s response to the Feeney issue as posted by Matt above? This is pre-Vatican II. Do you accept it as authoritative? You accept the Council of Florence as authoritative but you deny the same level of authority to Vatican II. Why is that?
On your blog you state: “The church of the Vatican II then is no longer the safe haven of salvation.” Yet you never answer the title of the post, “Where is the Catholic Church?” Where is it, Peter?
Peter, you also misinterpret Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio. It does not say that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church contra the sacred dogma of faith. It simply says that they are elements of the Church are found in protestant and orthodox communities and those Catholic elements can lead one to salvation. Hence, the elements are Catholic and connected to the one Mystical Body of Christ, noting that salvation still comes from the One True Church, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. It seems like you’re looking for contradictions that aren’t there.
You fail to quote the next section of UR no. 3 which clarifies the earlier section you take out of context. Here is the clarification:
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college ALONE, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be FULLY incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.
This blog does not preach universal salvation or your stringent idea of exclusivism, but it does recognize the entire Magisterium of the Church. You are wrenching things out of context, Peter, and this has led you to come to conclusions that are not consonant with the Faith of our Fathers.
All the best in Christ,
PJP
PS: On a last note, I saw that you link to the Holy Family Monastery of the Diamond Brothers. Please beware. Run away as fast as you can. These guys are in grave and obstinate error.
July 24, 2007 2:11 PM
Peter Albert said...
Dear PJP,
Unless we argue issues, we will call names--you managed to call the Dimonds 'dangerous' while earlier you stated that 'certainly' Sungenis believes in the necessity of sacrament of baptism.
Dear PJP, you imply that I distort the magisterium by imputing me the position of 'an arbiter', and yet note that I responded to each of your questions and theses (such as Romans 2:14-16 or 1 Timothy 2:4) by reference to traditional Catholic sources.
And I'll do the same to tackle the infamous Protocol 122/49, Suprema haec sacra. Well-known theologian of the time (and supporter of the position expressed in the Protocol) John (sic! should read Joseph) Clifford Fenton said the following on the relevance of the letter to the dogma of EENS in his book The Catholic Church and Salvation, published in 1958 (p. 103):
"This letter, known as Suprema haec sacra [Protocol 122/49], ... is an authoritative, though obviously not infallible document. That is to say, the teachings in Suprema haec sacra are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular document."
I agree with one point in the Suprema haec sacra:
"the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is nosalvation outside the Church. However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it.”
Since you imply that I am prejudiced against the recent pronouncements on EENS, I'll supply the 20-th century Pope, Pius XII's' statements:
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laverof regeneration and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration."
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (#27), 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter ofa few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the RomanCatholic Church are one and the same. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation."
Do you see, PJP, where I got the expression with which to address Mr. Sungenis' presentation? However, since I could be branded a self-styled 'arbiter' of the magisterium, I'll leave those quotes up there without a comment for you to figure out whether in fact Pius XII condemned the heresy of Feeneyism.
Let me address another of your concerns up front. You are asserting that the choice I posit 'either God accepts all the people of good will regardless of the faith they profess about Him or He accepts only those who hold the one acceptable faith' is a false dichotomy. Again, I must resort to a quote that actually supports only one alternative of the two:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
This reiterates the Athanasian Creed, and is the unchanging expression of the Catholic faith.I hope that I'll get fair treatment of the quotes I put up for defence of my position and that you state your position as well instead of warning of the danger of certain doctrines or people.Peter
July 24, 2007 2:45 PM
PJP said...
In your comments you question the validity of baptism of desire (which lies within the tradition of the Church as form of the sacrament of baptism) and you read/interpret the Council of Florence out of context (out of the corpus of Catholic thought and interpretation of the EENS dogma), placing such a statement above later statements reiterating EENS. It seems you have placed yourself as the arbiter and interpreter of the magisterium. This is quite dangerous, and I’m sincerely concerned for you.
You seem to frequently employ the term “exclusive salvation” as some “traditional message” or teaching of the Church. But is your rendition of exclusivism truly an aspect of Catholic Tradition? What do you mean by such a term? You state on your blog: “Let's face it: there are only two alternatives when it comes to salvation--either God accepts all the people of good will regardless of the faith they profess about Him or He accepts only those who hold the one acceptable faith. So it all comes down to the choice between universal salvation or exclusive salvation.” Peter Albert, this is what is known as a false dichotomy – a false option set up which is not consonant with Catholic thought. You do this again and again in your comments, making the salvation matter a black and white issue. Yes, ALL salvation come to the world through the Catholic Church (all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body, CCC 846), but the grace of salvation which emanates from the Church reaches people in both ordinary (sacraments) and extraordinary (ways unknown) means. The latter is unknown to us as noted in the Catechism no. 848. But in my estimation you probably don’t accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church…
Furthermore, you tell Wendy that she deserves to be “served the wealth of Catholic dogma.” I agree with you that all Catholics need to know and understand Catholic dogma and that much of it has been twisted or hidden today. Yet WHO is to do the serving? Are we to serve ourselves or are we to look to those God has placed in places of authority – the Magisterium (See. Matt. 23)? I’m not pushing for magisterial positivism (“Well, they say so, so it must be true.”), for I encourage a critical study of the faith in the context of Tradition, examining the current crisis we are in, but you’re taking the EENS matter into your own hands, divorcing in from the living magisterium of Christ’s Church.
What do you think about the Holy Office’s response to the Feeney issue as posted by Matt above? This is pre-Vatican II. Do you accept it as authoritative? You accept the Council of Florence as authoritative but you deny the same level of authority to Vatican II. Why is that?
On your blog you state: “The church of the Vatican II then is no longer the safe haven of salvation.” Yet you never answer the title of the post, “Where is the Catholic Church?” Where is it, Peter?
Peter, you also misinterpret Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio. It does not say that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church contra the sacred dogma of faith. It simply says that they are elements of the Church are found in protestant and orthodox communities and those Catholic elements can lead one to salvation. Hence, the elements are Catholic and connected to the one Mystical Body of Christ, noting that salvation still comes from the One True Church, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. It seems like you’re looking for contradictions that aren’t there.
You fail to quote the next section of UR no. 3 which clarifies the earlier section you take out of context. Here is the clarification:
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college ALONE, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be FULLY incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.
This blog does not preach universal salvation or your stringent idea of exclusivism, but it does recognize the entire Magisterium of the Church. You are wrenching things out of context, Peter, and this has led you to come to conclusions that are not consonant with the Faith of our Fathers.
All the best in Christ,
PJP
PS: On a last note, I saw that you link to the Holy Family Monastery of the Diamond Brothers. Please beware. Run away as fast as you can. These guys are in grave and obstinate error.
July 24, 2007 2:11 PM
Peter Albert said...
Dear PJP,
Unless we argue issues, we will call names--you managed to call the Dimonds 'dangerous' while earlier you stated that 'certainly' Sungenis believes in the necessity of sacrament of baptism.
Dear PJP, you imply that I distort the magisterium by imputing me the position of 'an arbiter', and yet note that I responded to each of your questions and theses (such as Romans 2:14-16 or 1 Timothy 2:4) by reference to traditional Catholic sources.
And I'll do the same to tackle the infamous Protocol 122/49, Suprema haec sacra. Well-known theologian of the time (and supporter of the position expressed in the Protocol) John (sic! should read Joseph) Clifford Fenton said the following on the relevance of the letter to the dogma of EENS in his book The Catholic Church and Salvation, published in 1958 (p. 103):
"This letter, known as Suprema haec sacra [Protocol 122/49], ... is an authoritative, though obviously not infallible document. That is to say, the teachings in Suprema haec sacra are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular document."
I agree with one point in the Suprema haec sacra:
"the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is nosalvation outside the Church. However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it.”
Since you imply that I am prejudiced against the recent pronouncements on EENS, I'll supply the 20-th century Pope, Pius XII's' statements:
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laverof regeneration and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration."
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (#27), 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter ofa few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the RomanCatholic Church are one and the same. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation."
Do you see, PJP, where I got the expression with which to address Mr. Sungenis' presentation? However, since I could be branded a self-styled 'arbiter' of the magisterium, I'll leave those quotes up there without a comment for you to figure out whether in fact Pius XII condemned the heresy of Feeneyism.
Let me address another of your concerns up front. You are asserting that the choice I posit 'either God accepts all the people of good will regardless of the faith they profess about Him or He accepts only those who hold the one acceptable faith' is a false dichotomy. Again, I must resort to a quote that actually supports only one alternative of the two:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
This reiterates the Athanasian Creed, and is the unchanging expression of the Catholic faith.I hope that I'll get fair treatment of the quotes I put up for defence of my position and that you state your position as well instead of warning of the danger of certain doctrines or people.Peter
July 24, 2007 2:45 PM
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."
Baptism of Desire at the Council of Trent? Refuting Mr. Sungenis
The blog Recapturing Our Catholic Patrimony: Because Catholicism Existed Before 1963 features a discussion on Robert Sungenis' apology of 'baptism of desire'.
Mr. Sungenis' presentation can be viewed at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXvn0Sqam7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riUk9RqaE7E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0v0ZYIqnhk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45foZDKg7PI
I was asked by the host to explain what I meant when stating that "Mr. Sungenis made the dogma meaningless"
The intervention is posted at: http://rcpstudy.blogspot.com/2007/05/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html
For those interested in further arguments against the hypothesis of 'baptism of desire', being based on reading of the Council of Trent, are advised to follow the source of my quotations from the Council and from Pope St. Leo the Great's letter--Peter and Michael Dimonds' book Outside the Catholic Church There Is Absolutely No Salvation, available on their website http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf
July 23, 2007 9:04 AM
Peter Albert said...
I'm sorry but it's curious in the first place why Mr. Sungenis would deliver all his talk and then conclude that the Church did not define the 'desire' in 'baptism of desire' and that the whole issue had been phrased by Trent in a 'roundabout way' so that the faithful should draw their own conclusions. I'm afraid this is a pretty Protestant way of handling dogmas. In fact, when the speaker claims that 'unless' in John 3:5 should not be taken in the strict sense, I'd like to point to two sources. First, Haydock's commentary to John 3:5 says that "The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Aug. in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ's adding water , is excluded a metaphorical baptism." (page 1397).
What is worse Mr. Sungenis goes on to use the expression 'and a desire for it' of Session 6, Chap. 4, of the Council of Trent in the sense which seems to exclude the necessity of sacramental baptism even though the text of the canon continues 'as it is written' and quotes John 3:5. However, another canon (Session 7, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism) does not allow a metaphorical understanding of John 3:5:
"If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’, are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Still, Mr. Sungenis boldly proceeds that the mere addition 'or a desire for it' "puts a totally different twist" on the issue and eliminates the 'physical' aspect. Is this a safe argument to present to the faithful? Far from it when one considers another quote from Session 6, Chap. 7 on the Causes of Justification:
"The causes of this Justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ… the efficient cause is truly a merciful God… the meritorious cause is His most beloved and only‐begotten Son… the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without faith no one is ever justified… This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for faith which bestows life eternal…"
Wouldn't it also be nice if Mr. Sungenis mentioned that in general agreement of the theologians the baptism of desire is not a form of the sacrament of baptism? And he would be wise to consider the unity of the baptism as indicated by Pope St. Leo the Great who, in the dogmatic letter to Flavian, mentioned: "the spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism" and stated that "these three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others."
The above quote should alert to the likelihood of reading Sess. 6, Chap. 4 in the meaning that "justification of the impious ... cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it" so that BOTH water AND desire are necessary for the baptism to effect the justification.
I am in general wondering what the point of Mr. Sungenis' lecture is in the congregation of Catholics? Does it reinforce the believers' faith in the mission of the Church? Hardly. Would a non-Catholic stepping into the congregation be impelled to convert to the Catholic Church? Given Mr. Sungenis' emphasis on the 'second option' -- I doubt it.
I would rather expect Mr. Sungenis to point out why 'there is no salvation outside the Church', to explain the significance of the dogma to the faithful and non-Catholics. Mr. Sungenis places too much emphasis on the individual's personal relationship with God on the path of salvation, and fails to elaborate the initial topic of the unique 'power of the keys' to the Church.
Finally, is it edifying for the faith to opt for a more 'liberal' or ambiguous reading of the Councils and Popes when there is a probable reading that is more 'restrictive'? I leave this judgment to you. For the above reasons, I must stick to my original assertion that Mr. Sungenis 'made the dogma meaningless'.However the irony is that by Mr. Sungenis' own judgment he himself may be the victim of 'invincible ignorance' and that would not matter in assessing his theological argument a bit since he had the best of intentions, right?
Mr. Sungenis' presentation can be viewed at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXvn0Sqam7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riUk9RqaE7E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0v0ZYIqnhk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45foZDKg7PI
I was asked by the host to explain what I meant when stating that "Mr. Sungenis made the dogma meaningless"
The intervention is posted at: http://rcpstudy.blogspot.com/2007/05/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html
For those interested in further arguments against the hypothesis of 'baptism of desire', being based on reading of the Council of Trent, are advised to follow the source of my quotations from the Council and from Pope St. Leo the Great's letter--Peter and Michael Dimonds' book Outside the Catholic Church There Is Absolutely No Salvation, available on their website http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf
July 23, 2007 9:04 AM
Peter Albert said...
I'm sorry but it's curious in the first place why Mr. Sungenis would deliver all his talk and then conclude that the Church did not define the 'desire' in 'baptism of desire' and that the whole issue had been phrased by Trent in a 'roundabout way' so that the faithful should draw their own conclusions. I'm afraid this is a pretty Protestant way of handling dogmas. In fact, when the speaker claims that 'unless' in John 3:5 should not be taken in the strict sense, I'd like to point to two sources. First, Haydock's commentary to John 3:5 says that "The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Aug. in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ's adding water , is excluded a metaphorical baptism." (page 1397).
What is worse Mr. Sungenis goes on to use the expression 'and a desire for it' of Session 6, Chap. 4, of the Council of Trent in the sense which seems to exclude the necessity of sacramental baptism even though the text of the canon continues 'as it is written' and quotes John 3:5. However, another canon (Session 7, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism) does not allow a metaphorical understanding of John 3:5:
"If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’, are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Still, Mr. Sungenis boldly proceeds that the mere addition 'or a desire for it' "puts a totally different twist" on the issue and eliminates the 'physical' aspect. Is this a safe argument to present to the faithful? Far from it when one considers another quote from Session 6, Chap. 7 on the Causes of Justification:
"The causes of this Justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ… the efficient cause is truly a merciful God… the meritorious cause is His most beloved and only‐begotten Son… the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without faith no one is ever justified… This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for faith which bestows life eternal…"
Wouldn't it also be nice if Mr. Sungenis mentioned that in general agreement of the theologians the baptism of desire is not a form of the sacrament of baptism? And he would be wise to consider the unity of the baptism as indicated by Pope St. Leo the Great who, in the dogmatic letter to Flavian, mentioned: "the spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism" and stated that "these three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others."
The above quote should alert to the likelihood of reading Sess. 6, Chap. 4 in the meaning that "justification of the impious ... cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it" so that BOTH water AND desire are necessary for the baptism to effect the justification.
I am in general wondering what the point of Mr. Sungenis' lecture is in the congregation of Catholics? Does it reinforce the believers' faith in the mission of the Church? Hardly. Would a non-Catholic stepping into the congregation be impelled to convert to the Catholic Church? Given Mr. Sungenis' emphasis on the 'second option' -- I doubt it.
I would rather expect Mr. Sungenis to point out why 'there is no salvation outside the Church', to explain the significance of the dogma to the faithful and non-Catholics. Mr. Sungenis places too much emphasis on the individual's personal relationship with God on the path of salvation, and fails to elaborate the initial topic of the unique 'power of the keys' to the Church.
Finally, is it edifying for the faith to opt for a more 'liberal' or ambiguous reading of the Councils and Popes when there is a probable reading that is more 'restrictive'? I leave this judgment to you. For the above reasons, I must stick to my original assertion that Mr. Sungenis 'made the dogma meaningless'.However the irony is that by Mr. Sungenis' own judgment he himself may be the victim of 'invincible ignorance' and that would not matter in assessing his theological argument a bit since he had the best of intentions, right?
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Debating the Salvation of non-Catholics and Catholic Charity Towards Them
Here is the exchange that I had with a certain Theocoid (with additional intervention of another paricipant). The entire debate and the original post can be found at Father Martin Fox's Bonfire of the Vanities blog at:
http://frmartinfox.blogspot.com/2007/07/post-for-feeneyites.html
"July 14, 2007
Peter Albert said...
Well, before Fr. Feeney, there was Pope Eugene IV who said in 1441:"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
This not only asserts the need to be united to the Church before death but also affirms that valid sacraments are effective for salvation only "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church". And if one jumps to the conclusion that non-Catholics are damned for staying outside the church, here's Bishop George Hay, speaking on the subject in 1787:
"Q. 14. But can none who are in heresy, and in invincible ignorance of the Truth be saved?
A. God forbid we should say so! All the above reasons only prove that if they live and die in that state they will not be saved, and that according to the present providence they cannot be saved? but the great God is able to take them out of that state, to cure even their ignorance though invincible to them tin their present situation, to bring them to the knowledge of the True Faith, and to the communion of His Holy Church, and in consequence of that to salvation; and we further add, that if He be pleased, of his infinite mercy, to save any who are at present in invincible ignorance of the Truth, in order to act consistently with Himself, and with His Holy Word [for, indeed, God is bound by His Word; God cannot deceive us], He will undoubtedly bring them to the union of His Holy Church for that purpose, before they die."
The necessity of being converted to the Catholic Church is demonstrated by the continuous missionary activity of the Church in the newly-discovered lands of America--if the Native Americans could be saved in their religions, why did missionaries go to such lengths to convert them?
(...)
July 14, 2007
Theocoid said...
As I mentioned in my comment, Peter Albert, that position clearly dismisses what has been said in total concerning the matter. First, you have to consider the historical climate in which that statement was made (the various formal heretics that were sowing discord and causing schism, that Jews simply could not deny the difference betwen Christianity and Judaism, hence chose to reject Christ and his Church, and that virtually no one in Christendom grew up in ignorance of the authority of the Church). In addition, you have to differentiate between those who cause schism and those who are unwittingly swayed by them, those who are formal heretics and those who are unknowingly material heretics (that is, grew up with no knowledge of Catholic authority), and those who would choose to do Christ's will given the choice and the understanding of its necessity. Also, you have to disregard that the Councils of Florence and Trent validated the baptism of those who were baptized even by pagans or heretics. As the current teaching of the Church states, baptism joins these people to the Church. And finally, you have to throw out the traditional belief in the salvation of righteous pagans (not to mention the OT patriarchs) held by many of the early Church fathers and doctors of the Church.
Bishop Hay was not speaking in an extraordinary exercise of the magisterium. He was teaching through his ordinary magisterial authority. Unless you are also going to give creedence to all other bishops speaking on that subject at the time, you cannot hold up his claim as being the proper interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Clearly, the magisterium has made clear since that time that such an interpretation is not the only acceptable theological opinion. The move against Fr. Feeney, although it did not condemn outright the interpretation as heretical, clearly discouraged that inerpretation. The latest pronouncements of the Church simply do not square with Bishop Hay's words.
The words of a handful of theologians in a particularly bitter period in Catholic history do not speak for the totality of Catholic doctrine, nor can they account for God's means or His mercy.For more information, see http://www.catholicfiles.com/againstfeeneyism.html
(...)
July 15, 2007
Peter Albert said...
Dear theocoid, I appreciate you took the time to analyze the arguments I have brought forward. I'm not going to discuss the question of the permanence of the dogma although it is disturbing that you could easily conclude that the 'current' teaching invalidates the ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope.
However, two important issues arise. First, you are advancing a number of reasons why Eugene IV should have made such a pronouncement. Let me quote him at the Council of Florence for the context:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Now, the above was not merely a response to specific heresies or clarification of some murky theological detail. In fact, it is a word-for-word assertion of the Athanasian Creed that can be found in the Prime hour of the traditional Roman breviary (all the way to 1962).
So to recapitulate unless one holds the two fundamental truths of the Catholic faith, i.e. the Trinity and Incarnation, one cannot be saved. This strict position did not spring up in the 15th century but may be easily seen in the first millennium when the councils placed anathemas on those who denied the dogma of the Trinity.
Secondly, bishop Hay need not be infallible to draw inference from the deposit of the faith. I believe you missed the point that was raised at the beggining of my earlier post. The question is not whether invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation (it needn't be), but how one may be in the state of sanctifying grace if one does not partake of sacraments. True, baptism of heretics and schismatics may be valid (against the position of Augustine), but how does one become justified with God outside the Catholic Church if:
-- Leo XIII did not accept the validity of Anglican orders,
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “… of Our own motion and certain knowledge We pronounce and declare that Ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and utterly void.”
-- the power of the keys is necessary for administering valid confession (Council of Trent).
Can anyone show me any infallible statements since then that would either approve of the Anglican rites or allow for valid confession in communities without Apostolic Succession? Vatican II? John Paul II? Benedict XVI? Any such statements?
Concluding with the oft-quoted Euguene IV and the Council of Florence:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to Hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
From the above we may infer that, while baptism takes away the stain of original sin, valid confession (or perfect contrition, which is a gift from God) is needed for taking away mortal sin. To my knowledge, valid confession is not available in Judaism, Islam or Protestantism.
Dear theocoid and other contributors: I have a general question for you--is it truly charitable to assure non-Catholics of their salvation or claim ignorance as to their fate if they die in mortal sin? This smacks of hipocrisy since we know that as Catholics we will surely not be saved if we die in mortal sin. I hope, dad29, that you are not saying "We ain't smart enough to know" what will happen if we die in mortal sin. In case we don't know, the Gospel and letters of St. Paul may enlighten us easily.
There are a number of places in the Scripture where the prophets (starting with Noah and Lot, Moses all the way to John the Baptist) announced in no ambiguous terms to the neighbors and strangers alike that unless they repented and made use of God's terms of salvation (e.g. the ark, Passover, baptism) they would be lost. And as we know all this has been written for our education.In Christo,Peter Albert
July 16, 2007
Patrick said...
It's entertaining to think that what this boils down to is our declaration of specific persons in hell...
The Church has never (and will never) abrogate its Divine mandate to bring the entirety of humanity to know Christ in the Catholic Church through the sacraments. Obviously, the point of all such topics is individual conversion. (Perhaps a different topic, but people incorrectly denounce Dignatatis Humanae as being anti-missionary, when rather is merely states that a forced conversion is not really a conversion at all!) Those disagreeing with Fr. Feeney have no right to say that it is better for some to remain outside Church, as this directly contradicts Church teaching.
As members of the Catholic Church, we really have only one thing to concern ourselves with with respect to those outside the physical boundaries of the Church, and that is evangelization and our efforts at bringing about their conversion.
Our missionary outreach is truly an act of charity insofar as we are helping people attain what Christ desires for them--namely, incorporation and participation in the Mystical Body. It's not good enough to desire merely that someone not goes to hell; we must desire that they love God. (Take for example, the difference between perfect and imperfect contrition.)
So perhaps the Feeneyites are right, and only those physically in the Catholic Church are saved, or perhaps they are wrong, and God can work extraordinarily with respect to certain circumstances and people... Neither changes our mandate as those in the Church: namely to be evangelistic and missionary.
What does it all boil down to? Simply, the state of those souls not affected by our actions to the extent necessary for conversion. I don't see this as a point worth fighting over; the Church was intended to be the salvation of all peoples, and all within the Church have the perogative to spread the word of God to those who don't know it through means that are efficacious. Perhaps some will be converted by being reminded of the very real possibility of their souls spending eternity in hell as they remain outside of the effects of the sacraments, while others will be converted by the desire to have the authentic faith, hope, and charity present only in the Church.
July 16, 2007
Theocoid said...
You see, here is where the Feenyites play the whole changing dogma card. That's not what happened. Dogma has not changed. The interpretation you have put on the 15th-century formulation is simply wrong. Either that, or the new pronoucements in Lumen Gentium and the Catechism are wrong, which means the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church. I don't accept the latter, so I have to believe the former.
In addition, we still have an obligation to evanglize non-Catholics. Even though they might have to possibility of salvation because of the one sacrament they have received, they do not have the fullness of the means salvation. You're correct. It is not charitable to let people live in error, but that is hardly the same as saying that they have no chance of salvation.
July 16, 2007
Peter Albert said...
Dear theocoid, please note that the remark on the permanence of the dogma was an aside, and was not directly pertinent to the argument. Of course, the gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Church and of course the Church in heaven and on earth is in agreement on the dogma as we believe in the unity of the Church. So no disagreement here!
Also I'm glad that charity does not divide us as all Catholics ought to care for the salvation of their non-Catholic neighbors.
What remains to be seen, however, is how a baptized Christian may remain in the state of sanctifying grace without valid confession. It really comes down to the key controversy of Luther and Calvin vs. Trent -- does God require us to be sanctified through the confession of mortal sins to a valid priest or does 'faith alone' justify 'juridically' with God?
Of course, I'm not a Jansenist to believe that grace is not present outside the Catholic Church, and everyone on the forum seems to agree that the refusal to join the Catholic Church once one is aware of the duty to do so is sinful. In essence, one should then read the Lumen Gentium in a restrictive sense--the Holy Spirit operates outside the Church, grace is given to sinners to repent. But one should not read it in the sense that a Talmudic Jew who denies Jesus Christ or a Protestant who refuses the primacy of the Pope is free to do so and their beliefs are indifferent to their salvation.
If we speak of 'righteous pagans' then we assume that they not only follow their conscience but that they seek God. In that case, the Gospel promises that they will be given the Holy Spirit who will guide them into 'all things'. Some have appealed to God's mercy--indeed God is merciful enough to grant as much grace as is necessary for one to come to the fulness of salvation AS LONG AS ONE COOPERATES WITH THE GRACE ALREADY GRANTED.
2 Tim. 4:16 states that God wishes all to be saved. This does not mean that all WILL be saved (free will) but certainly that also does not mean that God will leave a 'righteous pagan' in the darkness of error if the person is sincere.
I hope this will show that a Catholic serious about extra ecclesiam nulla sallus need not lack in charity. Let us pray for the conversion of those still in the bondage of sin!
Peter Albert"
http://frmartinfox.blogspot.com/2007/07/post-for-feeneyites.html
"July 14, 2007
Peter Albert said...
Well, before Fr. Feeney, there was Pope Eugene IV who said in 1441:"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
This not only asserts the need to be united to the Church before death but also affirms that valid sacraments are effective for salvation only "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church". And if one jumps to the conclusion that non-Catholics are damned for staying outside the church, here's Bishop George Hay, speaking on the subject in 1787:
"Q. 14. But can none who are in heresy, and in invincible ignorance of the Truth be saved?
A. God forbid we should say so! All the above reasons only prove that if they live and die in that state they will not be saved, and that according to the present providence they cannot be saved? but the great God is able to take them out of that state, to cure even their ignorance though invincible to them tin their present situation, to bring them to the knowledge of the True Faith, and to the communion of His Holy Church, and in consequence of that to salvation; and we further add, that if He be pleased, of his infinite mercy, to save any who are at present in invincible ignorance of the Truth, in order to act consistently with Himself, and with His Holy Word [for, indeed, God is bound by His Word; God cannot deceive us], He will undoubtedly bring them to the union of His Holy Church for that purpose, before they die."
The necessity of being converted to the Catholic Church is demonstrated by the continuous missionary activity of the Church in the newly-discovered lands of America--if the Native Americans could be saved in their religions, why did missionaries go to such lengths to convert them?
(...)
July 14, 2007
Theocoid said...
As I mentioned in my comment, Peter Albert, that position clearly dismisses what has been said in total concerning the matter. First, you have to consider the historical climate in which that statement was made (the various formal heretics that were sowing discord and causing schism, that Jews simply could not deny the difference betwen Christianity and Judaism, hence chose to reject Christ and his Church, and that virtually no one in Christendom grew up in ignorance of the authority of the Church). In addition, you have to differentiate between those who cause schism and those who are unwittingly swayed by them, those who are formal heretics and those who are unknowingly material heretics (that is, grew up with no knowledge of Catholic authority), and those who would choose to do Christ's will given the choice and the understanding of its necessity. Also, you have to disregard that the Councils of Florence and Trent validated the baptism of those who were baptized even by pagans or heretics. As the current teaching of the Church states, baptism joins these people to the Church. And finally, you have to throw out the traditional belief in the salvation of righteous pagans (not to mention the OT patriarchs) held by many of the early Church fathers and doctors of the Church.
Bishop Hay was not speaking in an extraordinary exercise of the magisterium. He was teaching through his ordinary magisterial authority. Unless you are also going to give creedence to all other bishops speaking on that subject at the time, you cannot hold up his claim as being the proper interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Clearly, the magisterium has made clear since that time that such an interpretation is not the only acceptable theological opinion. The move against Fr. Feeney, although it did not condemn outright the interpretation as heretical, clearly discouraged that inerpretation. The latest pronouncements of the Church simply do not square with Bishop Hay's words.
The words of a handful of theologians in a particularly bitter period in Catholic history do not speak for the totality of Catholic doctrine, nor can they account for God's means or His mercy.For more information, see http://www.catholicfiles.com/againstfeeneyism.html
(...)
July 15, 2007
Peter Albert said...
Dear theocoid, I appreciate you took the time to analyze the arguments I have brought forward. I'm not going to discuss the question of the permanence of the dogma although it is disturbing that you could easily conclude that the 'current' teaching invalidates the ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope.
However, two important issues arise. First, you are advancing a number of reasons why Eugene IV should have made such a pronouncement. Let me quote him at the Council of Florence for the context:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Now, the above was not merely a response to specific heresies or clarification of some murky theological detail. In fact, it is a word-for-word assertion of the Athanasian Creed that can be found in the Prime hour of the traditional Roman breviary (all the way to 1962).
So to recapitulate unless one holds the two fundamental truths of the Catholic faith, i.e. the Trinity and Incarnation, one cannot be saved. This strict position did not spring up in the 15th century but may be easily seen in the first millennium when the councils placed anathemas on those who denied the dogma of the Trinity.
Secondly, bishop Hay need not be infallible to draw inference from the deposit of the faith. I believe you missed the point that was raised at the beggining of my earlier post. The question is not whether invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation (it needn't be), but how one may be in the state of sanctifying grace if one does not partake of sacraments. True, baptism of heretics and schismatics may be valid (against the position of Augustine), but how does one become justified with God outside the Catholic Church if:
-- Leo XIII did not accept the validity of Anglican orders,
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “… of Our own motion and certain knowledge We pronounce and declare that Ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and utterly void.”
-- the power of the keys is necessary for administering valid confession (Council of Trent).
Can anyone show me any infallible statements since then that would either approve of the Anglican rites or allow for valid confession in communities without Apostolic Succession? Vatican II? John Paul II? Benedict XVI? Any such statements?
Concluding with the oft-quoted Euguene IV and the Council of Florence:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to Hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
From the above we may infer that, while baptism takes away the stain of original sin, valid confession (or perfect contrition, which is a gift from God) is needed for taking away mortal sin. To my knowledge, valid confession is not available in Judaism, Islam or Protestantism.
Dear theocoid and other contributors: I have a general question for you--is it truly charitable to assure non-Catholics of their salvation or claim ignorance as to their fate if they die in mortal sin? This smacks of hipocrisy since we know that as Catholics we will surely not be saved if we die in mortal sin. I hope, dad29, that you are not saying "We ain't smart enough to know" what will happen if we die in mortal sin. In case we don't know, the Gospel and letters of St. Paul may enlighten us easily.
There are a number of places in the Scripture where the prophets (starting with Noah and Lot, Moses all the way to John the Baptist) announced in no ambiguous terms to the neighbors and strangers alike that unless they repented and made use of God's terms of salvation (e.g. the ark, Passover, baptism) they would be lost. And as we know all this has been written for our education.In Christo,Peter Albert
July 16, 2007
Patrick said...
It's entertaining to think that what this boils down to is our declaration of specific persons in hell...
The Church has never (and will never) abrogate its Divine mandate to bring the entirety of humanity to know Christ in the Catholic Church through the sacraments. Obviously, the point of all such topics is individual conversion. (Perhaps a different topic, but people incorrectly denounce Dignatatis Humanae as being anti-missionary, when rather is merely states that a forced conversion is not really a conversion at all!) Those disagreeing with Fr. Feeney have no right to say that it is better for some to remain outside Church, as this directly contradicts Church teaching.
As members of the Catholic Church, we really have only one thing to concern ourselves with with respect to those outside the physical boundaries of the Church, and that is evangelization and our efforts at bringing about their conversion.
Our missionary outreach is truly an act of charity insofar as we are helping people attain what Christ desires for them--namely, incorporation and participation in the Mystical Body. It's not good enough to desire merely that someone not goes to hell; we must desire that they love God. (Take for example, the difference between perfect and imperfect contrition.)
So perhaps the Feeneyites are right, and only those physically in the Catholic Church are saved, or perhaps they are wrong, and God can work extraordinarily with respect to certain circumstances and people... Neither changes our mandate as those in the Church: namely to be evangelistic and missionary.
What does it all boil down to? Simply, the state of those souls not affected by our actions to the extent necessary for conversion. I don't see this as a point worth fighting over; the Church was intended to be the salvation of all peoples, and all within the Church have the perogative to spread the word of God to those who don't know it through means that are efficacious. Perhaps some will be converted by being reminded of the very real possibility of their souls spending eternity in hell as they remain outside of the effects of the sacraments, while others will be converted by the desire to have the authentic faith, hope, and charity present only in the Church.
July 16, 2007
Theocoid said...
You see, here is where the Feenyites play the whole changing dogma card. That's not what happened. Dogma has not changed. The interpretation you have put on the 15th-century formulation is simply wrong. Either that, or the new pronoucements in Lumen Gentium and the Catechism are wrong, which means the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church. I don't accept the latter, so I have to believe the former.
In addition, we still have an obligation to evanglize non-Catholics. Even though they might have to possibility of salvation because of the one sacrament they have received, they do not have the fullness of the means salvation. You're correct. It is not charitable to let people live in error, but that is hardly the same as saying that they have no chance of salvation.
July 16, 2007
Peter Albert said...
Dear theocoid, please note that the remark on the permanence of the dogma was an aside, and was not directly pertinent to the argument. Of course, the gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Church and of course the Church in heaven and on earth is in agreement on the dogma as we believe in the unity of the Church. So no disagreement here!
Also I'm glad that charity does not divide us as all Catholics ought to care for the salvation of their non-Catholic neighbors.
What remains to be seen, however, is how a baptized Christian may remain in the state of sanctifying grace without valid confession. It really comes down to the key controversy of Luther and Calvin vs. Trent -- does God require us to be sanctified through the confession of mortal sins to a valid priest or does 'faith alone' justify 'juridically' with God?
Of course, I'm not a Jansenist to believe that grace is not present outside the Catholic Church, and everyone on the forum seems to agree that the refusal to join the Catholic Church once one is aware of the duty to do so is sinful. In essence, one should then read the Lumen Gentium in a restrictive sense--the Holy Spirit operates outside the Church, grace is given to sinners to repent. But one should not read it in the sense that a Talmudic Jew who denies Jesus Christ or a Protestant who refuses the primacy of the Pope is free to do so and their beliefs are indifferent to their salvation.
If we speak of 'righteous pagans' then we assume that they not only follow their conscience but that they seek God. In that case, the Gospel promises that they will be given the Holy Spirit who will guide them into 'all things'. Some have appealed to God's mercy--indeed God is merciful enough to grant as much grace as is necessary for one to come to the fulness of salvation AS LONG AS ONE COOPERATES WITH THE GRACE ALREADY GRANTED.
2 Tim. 4:16 states that God wishes all to be saved. This does not mean that all WILL be saved (free will) but certainly that also does not mean that God will leave a 'righteous pagan' in the darkness of error if the person is sincere.
I hope this will show that a Catholic serious about extra ecclesiam nulla sallus need not lack in charity. Let us pray for the conversion of those still in the bondage of sin!
Peter Albert"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)