The Catholic Encyclopedia on "Outside the Church, No Salvation"
#11
(02-14-2014, 08:42 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: I've never had any objections to "baptism of desire" but I do have trouble with the notion of someone being saved who does not somehow, in  some  way does not explicitly make an act of Faith in Jesus Christ. I maintain that a man could, on his deathbed, receive some sort of a divine vision interiorly that would lead him to make an explicit act of Faith in Jesus Christ and thus be justified but I really have trouble with the idea that someone can die without even the most rudimentary knowledge of Jesus Christ and still be saved.  Father Brian Harrison on the Roman Theological Forum website and on a talk given at a conference at the St Benedict Center (I know, but he's NOT a so called "feenyite) lays out well a defense of baptism of desire and does a good job showing how it must be eventually tied in with an explicit act of Faith in Jesus Christ. The reason we cannot judge what happens to any man even if he's outwardly a heretic or a pagan is because he could (and we should pray that he does, in the case of the pagan) be given that interior vision of Jesus Christ as savior that he can, in a way hidden to those at bedside, accept explicitly.
You have to ask yourself, does God expect the impossible?

If a man somehow live his whole life and never hears the Gospel message, but lives by Natural Law, is he damned?
Reply
#12

For Lefebvre fans, there are these quotes from him:


"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 It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped.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)


------------------------------------------------


Archbishop Lefebvre, "Against the Heresies," pages 216-217, on Proposition #16 of the Syllabus of Errors, in which Pope Pius IX condemned the following statement: "Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation":

"Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God — God in so far as these people can conceive Him — and who want to accomplish His will. There certainly are not many such persons, because these people, not being baptized, suffer more than Christians the effects of original sin. But some of these persons make an act of love, which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved. Implicit baptism means the Church: by the very fact that baptism of desire is found implicitly in their act of charity and submission to God these persons belong to the Church. They are saved by the Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ. For there is baptism of water, baptism of blood, baptism of desire (that of catechumens), then baptism of implicit desire, which is contained in an act of true love of God. How many are saved by this form of baptism? God alone knows. It is a great mystery for us. One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions, but if he is saved, it is always by his attachment to the mystical body which is the Catholic Church, even if the persons concerned do not know it."

Reply
#13
(02-14-2014, 09:49 AM)Tim Wrote: EENS, and BOD, and BOB, do not contradict each other. We can not see hearts (intentions) and outside of a basic understanding of the BOD, and BOB, do we really need to dissect the words, coming at it from our own pre-conceived notions ? Is it not better to accept it and know we do not know exactly what God does in these situations but have hope for those souls ? If you love Me you'll keep my commandments, which should mean for us to be shining examples of obedience and bring the Light of Christ out into this depraved world.

tim

Well said.

And some of you may have seen me post this thought before, but I'll repeat it anyway: we should be far more worried about what WE/I contribute to the world's salvation, and the spreading of the Word, and the reputation of the Church through our prayer, our acts of charity, and our missionary/evangelizing activity than whether some other person is saved or not.  The only heart we know is our heart, we do nor know the state of another's heart. 
Reply
#14
(02-14-2014, 08:42 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: I've never had any objections to "baptism of desire" but I do have trouble with the notion of someone being saved who does not somehow, in  some  way does not explicitly make an act of Faith in Jesus Christ. I maintain that a man could, on his deathbed, receive some sort of a divine vision interiorly that would lead him to make an explicit act of Faith in Jesus Christ and thus be justified but I really have trouble with the idea that someone can die without even the most rudimentary knowledge of Jesus Christ and still be saved.  Father Brian Harrison on the Roman Theological Forum website and on a talk given at a conference at the St Benedict Center (I know, but he's NOT a so called "feenyite) lays out well a defense of baptism of desire and does a good job showing how it must be eventually tied in with an explicit act of Faith in Jesus Christ. The reason we cannot judge what happens to any man even if he's outwardly a heretic or a pagan is because he could (and we should pray that he does, in the case of the pagan) be given that interior vision of Jesus Christ as savior that he can, in a way hidden to those at bedside, accept explicitly.

You are Jean Calvin have a lot in common. He too believed God created some people to be damned.
Reply
#15
(02-14-2014, 03:40 PM)Unum Sint Wrote:
(02-14-2014, 08:42 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: I've never had any objections to "baptism of desire" but I do have trouble with the notion of someone being saved who does not somehow, in  some  way does not explicitly make an act of Faith in Jesus Christ. I maintain that a man could, on his deathbed, receive some sort of a divine vision interiorly that would lead him to make an explicit act of Faith in Jesus Christ and thus be justified but I really have trouble with the idea that someone can die without even the most rudimentary knowledge of Jesus Christ and still be saved.  Father Brian Harrison on the Roman Theological Forum website and on a talk given at a conference at the St Benedict Center (I know, but he's NOT a so called "feenyite) lays out well a defense of baptism of desire and does a good job showing how it must be eventually tied in with an explicit act of Faith in Jesus Christ. The reason we cannot judge what happens to any man even if he's outwardly a heretic or a pagan is because he could (and we should pray that he does, in the case of the pagan) be given that interior vision of Jesus Christ as savior that he can, in a way hidden to those at bedside, accept explicitly.

You are Jean Calvin have a lot in common. He too believed God created some people to be damned.
Although I do not agree with formerbuddhist, it is very unkind of you. Non sequitur, you know.
Reply
#16
(02-14-2014, 10:06 AM)Chestertonian Wrote:
(02-14-2014, 08:42 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: I've never had any objections to "baptism of desire" but I do have trouble with the notion of someone being saved who does not somehow, in  some  way does not explicitly make an act of Faith in Jesus Christ. I maintain that a man could, on his deathbed, receive some sort of a divine vision interiorly that would lead him to make an explicit act of Faith in Jesus Christ and thus be justified but I really have trouble with the idea that someone can die without even the most rudimentary knowledge of Jesus Christ and still be saved.  Father Brian Harrison on the Roman Theological Forum website and on a talk given at a conference at the St Benedict Center (I know, but he's NOT a so called "feenyite) lays out well a defense of baptism of desire and does a good job showing how it must be eventually tied in with an explicit act of Faith in Jesus Christ. The reason we cannot judge what happens to any man even if he's outwardly a heretic or a pagan is because he could (and we should pray that he does, in the case of the pagan) be given that interior vision of Jesus Christ as savior that he can, in a way hidden to those at bedside, accept explicitly.

But yet an infant who is baptized with water cannot make an act of faith.  I suppose the parents make an act of faith on behalf of the child and promise to raise them in the Church but how many times is that actually sincere?

But the grace of the sacrament acts anyway.
Reply
#17
Here's a little something you might want to put in your pipe and light. We were taught it is important to say an Act of Faith everyday. I don't see that mentioned very much. Luckily for me I pray 15 decades during the day so I recite the Apostles creed three times and that covers that. Reciting prayers like that are a way of sorting out the mire and muck of the day which clogs the brain. It's like hitting the reset or re-booting the computer.

tim
Reply
#18
(02-14-2014, 03:40 PM)Unum Sint Wrote: You are Jean Calvin have a lot in common. He too believed God created some people to be damned.

I think you're misunderstanding the position.  Everyone agrees that no one is created to be damned and that God will provide a properly disposed person with the absolutely necessary means of salvation who is innocently ignorant.  The controverted question is what those means are that God provides extraordinarily--is the gift of a direct or explicit faith in Jesus one of those absolutely necessary means God provides (even if at the moment just prior to death)?

Personally, I think both positions can be reasonably supported (ie faith in Jesus is necessary vs. faith in God in general is necessary--NB: one way or the other, faith is absolutely necessary), but I lean toward the necessity of faith in Jesus being necessary, at least from the texts I've see (see my previous post for some recent ones).
Reply
#19
But does that mean faith in Christ as Christ IS, or faith in Christ as what Christ is -- mediator.

If such is the first, where does one stop with the minute details? Such would encourage a culture of legalism.

If such is the last, where does it become too vague? Such would encourage a culture of relativism.

Reply
#20
(02-14-2014, 05:22 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: But does that mean faith in Christ as Christ IS, or faith in Christ as what Christ is -- mediator.

If such is the first, where does one stop with the minute details? Such would encourage a culture of legalism.

If such is the last, where does it become too vague? Such would encourage a culture of relativism.

That's a good question.  What about merely Christ as Logos--St. Justin Martyr considered people who followed reason, the Logos, as Christians. What about if you are unconditionally willing to place your faith in the way, truth, and life of God, does that "count" (since Christ is the way, the truth, and the life)?

Again, I don't find this point too critical, as long as we acknowledge that we should seek to spread the entire Gospel and that where will fall short, God can save those who should be saved. God desires all men to be saved, and therefore He offers all men the means of salvation in one way or the other. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)