Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
#11
(08-18-2011, 08:51 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: charlesh,
What's your opinion of the teaching of Bishop George Hay (The Sincere Christian) and Fr. Michael Muëller (The Catholic Dogma)?  Are you familiar with their work?

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mode.../index.htm

I only just heard about Fr. Mueller's book from reading Coulombe's book. I've read that passage you linked to from Bp. Hay's Sincere Christian. Certainly made sense when I read it, but it was a while ago, so I don't remember specifics.
Quote:I've been on long threads on this topic,  but I think I'll lay low this time.

Me too--don't have time right now for long drawn-out arguments.
Reply
#12
Anything by Orestes Brownson.

http://www.orestesbrownson.com

He is like the American Chesterton.

Read "Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salva"

At the bottom of the works tab.
Reply
#13
Another chance for me to market my videos. Yay.

Reply
#14
Quick question for those who focus on EENS: the Catechism of St. Pius X affirms "baptism of desire" (Creed Article 9, #29). This catechism was a project of the pope himself. How do you explain this?
Reply
#15
THis is what Orestes Brownson says, from the 19th century: He is quoting Billuart, a theologian.

" I have said," says Billuart, " that, catechumens are not actually and properly in the Church, because, when they request admission into the Church, and when they already have faith and charity, they may be said to be in the Church proximately and in desire, as one may be said to be in the house because he is in the vestibule for the purpose of immediately entering. And in this sense must be taken what I have elsewhere said of their pertaining to the Church, that is, that they pertain to her inchoately, as aspirants who voluntarily subject themselves to her laws ; and they may be saved, notwithstanding there is no salvation out of the Church ; for this is to be understood of one who is in the Church neither actually nor virtually, nee re, nee in voto. In the same sense, St. Augustine, Tract. 4 in Joan. n. 13, is to be understood, when he sa)'s, u Futuri crant allqui in Ecclesia excelsioris gratice catcchumeni,"  that is, in will and proximate disposition, u in voto et proxima dispositione." *(footnote: * Theologia, dc Reg. Fid. Dissert. 3, Art. 3.)
It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong ; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering,  have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re ; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it. *(footnote: * Summa 3, Q. G8, a. 2. corp. ad 2. et ad 3.)

Catechumens alone are saved by desire, and they are saved by being in the church, by virtue of being "on the doorstep" so to speak. They are not formal members, but nevertheless, they seem to definitely be a part of the visible structure: The Catechumanate belongs to the church.

All who are baptized are made, in that moment members of the Catholic Church. Even "Lutheran" babies who are baptized are not Lutherans, but Catholics!
Reply
#16
Probably the most easily understood writing there is on the subject...........
http://traditionalromancatholicism.org/Breadoflife.html - Bread of Life by Fr. Feeney
Reply
#17
This is the passage I mentioned from Pope St. Pius X's catechism:

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

Fr. Meuller would call that a heresy in the 1880's. I don't think anybody would call Pope Pius X a heretic today. So how do Feeney, Coulombe, et al. treat this passage of Pius X?
Reply
#18
What you are quoting was not in the first draft prepared by Poe St. Pius X. It was later added.
Reply
#19
I contend that one does not have to be formally IN the Church to be saved. One can be saved by grace outside of visible communion. This is extraordinary, in the sense that it is something which may seem to occur outside of the established norm (the norm set by the Lord). We can't lost sight of the fact that while the Church and the sacramental life of the Church is an extension of Christ's Incarnation (the vehicle of redemption), that it is inconceivable that God would choose to limit himself to such, when reality itself has had and doubtless will have its limits (the truth having not reached all, or verily computed by all). In fact all of nature and existence, considered alongside the Church as Mystical Bride, Mother and Teacher is imbued with the grace of Christ. The Church is indeed a hospital for sinners; but those who never reach the Church in this life, but who very much seek the remedy for sin in this life may very well be rewarded in the next. I believe this can be drawn from Tradition, but I would have to go through my "conversion phase" notes, and I think they're at my parents!

Yes, this has not really been explicitly enunciated by Fathers and Councils. But, in my view, it is reasonable given what we hold to be true; true about God, true about life. Salvation by blood or fire has never been asserted to be dogma (those who posit such theological hypotheses would admit it) but simply the implicit, common sense approach at reconciliation between ideals. I can seen no contradiction between EENS and baptism of blood or fire (or light, for reason is light!). One does not directly imply the other, but that is no reason to play the heresy card. There is something so synergistic about these two ideas (EENS on the one hand, and everything else on the other).

Grace is everywhere and already present, and we can be sure that in the darkest corners of human experience God is there waiting for His desperate children...Many of whom would not deny Him had they felt the consolation of solidarity in Christ while they were probably doing their darnest to seek that something we call The Good.

I've weighed in not with the intention of a continuing discussion, but to lend something to the minds of others; minds which are doubtless hungry for truth, along hearts which seek to speak to Heart.

Peace to you all.
Reply
#20
(08-20-2011, 05:53 PM)Gregory I Wrote: What you are quoting was not in the first draft prepared by Poe St. Pius X. It was later added.

Thank you. That is exactly what I was looking for (and suspected). Do you know where you can read the original version? Do you know who revised it? Do you have some kind of reference?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)