Poll: Do you agree with the following:
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
6
0%
0 0%
21
0%
0 0%
5
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

EENS
#31
(03-24-2010, 02:37 AM)Walty Wrote:
(03-24-2010, 12:46 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(03-24-2010, 12:44 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-24-2010, 12:30 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(03-23-2010, 08:34 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: If someone who is invincibly ignorant gets into heaven, they are then part of the Church Triumphant.  Before that, they are not part of the Church because to be part of the Church Militant requires valid Sacramental baptism - desire and blood do not count for that either.

Maybe I misunderstand you. Are you saying that an invincibly ignorant person would go to heaven at which point they would be part of the Church (Triumphant)?

That just sounds very circular to me because according to the teachings of the Church, no one who has no persevered within the bosom of the Church can be saved. The Church teaches that one must be part of the Church first in order to be saved, not that everyone who is saved is then part of the Church.

It's not circular...

Everyone in heaven is part of the Church Triumphant (by definition).
Therefore, if a pagan makes it to heaven,  he is part of the Church Triumphant.

What's missing is the when and how he got into the Church.

"according to the teachings of the Church, no one who has no persevered within the bosom of the Church can be saved"

See Denziger, ABL, etc., that I quoted above.  Someone who (visibly) dies as a pagan did not persevere within the bosom of the Church, did they?  Yet the claims above are that the pagan might be saved.

I think the Pope wrote this for an important reason:  "it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."    We should just accept the statement at face value and do what we are supposed to do for ourselves and others.  The Church may have stated the above solely to serve as a statement of truth and nothing actionable or presumable or anything else.

You know, someone might be able to hoist themselves out of a pit of vipers by a thread off a piece of clothing.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't be throwing them a rope, a ladder, and calling a helicopter.

Yes, but this was declared ex cathedra:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“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 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.”

How do you know this is ex cathedra?  What is or isn't seems somewhat ambiguous before clarifications of precisely when ex cathedra statements happen (or what constitutes them) before Vatican I.

Was it accepted as such prior to VII?  Are you aware of any lists of ex cathedra statements according to traditional theologians?

Well, that's a good question, but if it isn't, it's as close as one can get to an infallible definition. He uses the language of Church to ratify the Athanasian Creed.

“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 … This is the Catholic Faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

(Athanasian Creed; quoted and solemnly ratified ex cathedra by Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, session 8, November 22, 1439)


“There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

(Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215)


"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 luife, 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; [the Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches] that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgivings and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and [the Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches] 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."

(Ex cathedra solemn definition of Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence (Ecumenical Council), "Cantate Domino," 1441; Denzinger)


“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members ... By divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and … this is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”

(Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum, May 5, 1824; paragraph 14)
Reply
#32
INPEFESS, I tend to agree with you, as usual.

The declaration of Pope Eugene at Florence is the most explicit we have concerning this topic.  As it can clearly be seen, the language of infallibility is used here (we teach, profess, declare etc.)

One of the best treatments of EENS is from Fr. Michael Muller, one of the most widely read theologians of the 19th century, which I posted a few days back on another EENS thread (there seems to be one about every week!).  As for almost everything, and especially when it comes to EENS, I stick to pre-conciliar writitngs.

Here is the link to the thread:   http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...468.0.html
Reply
#33
So how do you reconcile the teachings on baptism of desire then?  Do you say that baptism by desire must involve an explicit understanding of the Catholic sacrament of baptism and a desire for it?
Reply
#34
So, less than 20% of Fisheaters agree with Archbishop Lefebvre.


"We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.

Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.

Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth."(Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics)
Reply
#35
(03-24-2010, 04:22 PM)Walty Wrote: So how do you reconcile the teachings on baptism of desire then?  Do you say that baptism by desire must involve an explicit understanding of the Catholic sacrament of baptism and a desire for it?

I think what some assert is that invincible ignorance coupled with an implicit desire for (without explicit knowledge of) Baptism and an extraordinary inculcation of grace can unite someone to the Church. For instance:

Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 17 Wrote:22 But Paul standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious. 23 For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you: 24 God, who made the world, and all things therein;

Then, continuing the same sentence, he corrects them:

Quote:he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is he served with men's hands, as though he needed any thing; seeing it is he who giveth to all life, and breath, and all things:26 And hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times, and the limits of their habitation. 27 That they should seek God, if happily they may feel after him or find him, although he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring.

St. Paul also speaks of having knowledge of God and His divinity without having explicit knowledge of it:

St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 1 Wrote:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Some say that the invincible ignorance (such as those in the Acts before Paul came) coupled with a desire to know the Truth and to receive Baptism if one had explicit knowledge of it could save a man of good will through a preliminary attachment to the Church. They further assert that the responsiveness and cooperation with an extraordinary inculcation of grace would allow one to have persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

EDIT: Spelling.
Reply
#36
(03-24-2010, 04:56 PM)augusztina Wrote: So, less than 20% of Fisheaters agree with Archbishop Lefebvre.


"We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, "Outside the Church there is no salvation"--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.

Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.

Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth."(Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics)

I agree with Abp Lefebvre.
Reply
#37
(03-24-2010, 04:56 PM)augusztina Wrote: So, less than 20% of Fisheaters agree with Archbishop Lefebvre.

Not necessarily. I think "men of good will" needs to be clarified. Do we mean "good hearted" Protestants who explicitly reject the Church but earnestly try to live a good life outside of it, or by "men of good will" do you mean a soul of "good will" coupled with invincible ignorance: someone who, through no fault of their own, is ignorant of the Church and the gospel?

EDIT: Spelling.
Reply
#38
(03-24-2010, 05:11 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(03-24-2010, 04:56 PM)augusztina Wrote: So, less than 20% of Fisheaters agree with Archbishop Lefebvre.

Not necessarily. I think "men of good will" needs to be clarified. Do we mean "good hearted" Protestants who explicitly reject the Church but earnestly try to live a good life outside of it, or by "men of good will" do you mean a soul of "good will" coupled with invinsible ignorance: someone who, through no fault of their own, is ignorant of the Church and the gospel?

Since invincible ignorance (a very important factor) was not a qualifier in the original post, I voted "no". But if "men of good will" includes someone who, through no fault of their own, is ignorant of the Church and of the teachings of our Lord, then yes.

EDIT: Spelling.
Reply
#39
(03-24-2010, 01:05 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: There is really too much to discuss and too little  I want to respond to because, well, I'm not interested in discussing EENS.   :laughing: In fact, over the years, that is a topic I mostly have not involved myself in because it seems that when people pick a side, there is no convincing them to come to the other side, no matter which side one is on.  And it is difficult to see a middle ground.

So, I've pretty much stated what I think.  Is it right?  Well, I think it is or I wouldn't believe it (duh).  But, as far as defending it or even explaining more of myself to people who agree with me, it's just not a topic of interest to me.

And part of that is because of what I said - in 99% of cases, it's just a theological pinhead question that serves the truth being stated.  In the 1% of cases where it applies, Christ does the judging, and we know He'll do a good job and doesn't need our second-guessing.

But in practical terms, we all know what we are supposed to do: save ourselves with God's help and save others with God's help.  We're Catholics, so invincible ignorance won't apply to us.

At the end of the day, saying one Rosary is probably worth more than 10,000 hours of debate and discussion on EENS.   That's my $0.02 anyhow....  So I probably won't respond much more on this thread.  :shrug:

I agree with this too. It's not that the subject isn't important, but we spend way, way, way too much time debating it here. The greatest minds in the Church have debated this and have disagreed. In the end, our opinions on EENS are either going to be wrong or right. I'm not afraid because Christ's judgment is perfect for every one.
Reply
#40
(03-24-2010, 12:47 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(03-24-2010, 12:46 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(03-24-2010, 12:44 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-24-2010, 12:30 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(03-23-2010, 08:34 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: If someone who is invincibly ignorant gets into heaven, they are then part of the Church Triumphant.  Before that, they are not part of the Church because to be part of the Church Militant requires valid Sacramental baptism - desire and blood do not count for that either.

Maybe I misunderstand you. Are you saying that an invincibly ignorant person would go to heaven at which point they would be part of the Church (Triumphant)?

That just sounds very circular to me because according to the teachings of the Church, no one who has no persevered within the bosom of the Church can be saved. The Church teaches that one must be part of the Church first in order to be saved, not that everyone who is saved is then part of the Church.

It's not circular...

Everyone in heaven is part of the Church Triumphant (by definition).
Therefore, if a pagan makes it to heaven,  he is part of the Church Triumphant.

What's missing is the when and how he got into the Church.

"according to the teachings of the Church, no one who has no persevered within the bosom of the Church can be saved"

See Denziger, ABL, etc., that I quoted above.  Someone who (visibly) dies as a pagan did not persevere within the bosom of the Church, did they?  Yet the claims above are that the pagan might be saved.

I think the Pope wrote this for an important reason:  "it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."    We should just accept the statement at face value and do what we are supposed to do for ourselves and others.  The Church may have stated the above solely to serve as a statement of truth and nothing actionable or presumable or anything else.

You know, someone might be able to hoist themselves out of a pit of vipers by a thread off a piece of clothing.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't be throwing them a rope, a ladder, and calling a helicopter.

Yes, but this was declared ex cathedra:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“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 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.”

So it would seem one must be attached to the Church before death in order attain salvation.

A woman came to St. John Vianney upset due to her husband having recently committed suicide by jumping off of a bridge into a river and worried that he had gone to H***. St. John Vianney told her that he had seen that the man had repented on the way into the water and so was Saved. (The man had received Baptism and was a Catholic before he threw away God's Gift).

This story is one I have heard told by a few priests that I respected and were well known (like Fr. Corapi).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)