The Catholic Encyclopedia on "Outside the Church, No Salvation"
#21
Long before everyone else , long before the SSPX , Father Leonard Feeney was warning the Church what was coming due to the sentimental theology concerning Outside the Church , No Salvation. When that dogma is not taken seriously the rest are easily played with to.
Reply
#22
Obviously what Our Lord wanted us to know, what He told us is that we must be baptized. And so we are to baptize our children ASAP and work and pray for all nations to be baptized. Missions and all that. That's what He wanted us to know.

After that I don' t worry about these things and I don't sweat too much over commands to the Israelites to slaughter all living things because it is God' s business and I know whatever he wills is perfectly just so why worry?
Reply
#23
How is my position that of Calvin? I never said some people are created to be damned, that's ridiculous and no where in what I said. I simply believe that one must explicitly  believe in Jesus Christ to be saved and piously believe that God can and does give men the opportunity to make that act of faith even if we as outside observers, say at the bedside of the dying cannot tell. I can pray that someone who is an atheist, a Jew or whatever, if they are truly invincibly ignorant, can be given an interior vision that allows him to make an act of explicit faith in Jesus Christ. I  simply do not believe that one can be saved without faith in Jesus Christ. How is this Calvinism?
Reply
#24
(02-14-2014, 08:55 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: How is my position that of Calvin? I never said some people are created to be damned, that's ridiculous and no where in what I said. I simply believe that one must explicitly  believe in Jesus Christ to be saved and piously believe that God can and does give men the opportunity to make that act of faith even if we as outside observers, say at the bedside of the dying cannot tell. I can pray that someone who is an atheist, a Jew or whatever, if they are truly invincibly ignorant, can be given an interior vision that allows him to make an act of explicit faith in Jesus Christ. I  simply do not believe that one can be saved without faith in Jesus Christ. How is this Calvinism?

If one never has the opportunity to know of the Gospel, they are created to be damned by proxy. That's Calvinism. Hence, the reason the Molinist Jesuits accused the Thomistic Dominicans of Calvinism. The logical consequence of Thomistic thought on this issue IS Calvinism.

Reply
#25
Briefly, my position is not that the implicit faith in the Savior which sufficed for salvation before the coming of Christ suddenly lost this saving efficacy after his coming. Rather, I would argue that after the promulgation of the Gospel at Pentecost, implicit faith simply became extinct. That is, God no longer infuses the theological virtue of faith – a supernatural gift that goes beyond a merely natural knowledge of God – in a form that produces merely implicit acts of faith in the Redeemer. Rather, every act of theological faith is now an explicit and conscious act of faith in Jesus Christ. (Cf. Jn 17: 3: “This is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christwhom you have sent.”) I do not see how the contrary thesis can honestly be reconciled with the infallible Florentine teaching that allpagans and Jews are outside the Church and so are damned if they die as pagans and Jews. For if some of them had an implicit supernatural faith in Christ despite their explicit adherence to a non-Christian religion or philosophy, it would simply not be true to classify all of them as being outside the Church. But (it will be objected) does this not imply, intolerably, the certain damnation of all the countless millions of unevangelized people round the world who have lived and died after Pentecost, but before missionaries reached their lands? No, it does not imply that. Modern clinical observations and countless recent testimonies of ‘near-death experiences’ are teaching us that people can appear to bystanders to be totally unconscious or even dead (with zero brain activity registering on hospital instruments) while in fact they were in fact consciously undergoing very vivid and sometimes life-changing experiences. Such evidence is a remarkable reminder that Almighty God is perfectly capable, in a dying person’s last moments, of bestowing upon him/her graces and illumination that enable a saving act of explicit and repentant Christian faith (‘baptism of desire’) that may well be completely undetectable to bystanders at the deathbed. This should not be confused, of course, with the idea of “deathbed conversions” on the part of religiously indifferent loose-livers who have knowingly but carelessly been living gravely sinful lives. Sound spiritual writers have long warned us that the true last-minute repentance of such habitually immoral and presumptuous souls is an extraordinary grace that is probably quite rare. Rather, we are talking here principally about persons who have hitherto been in invincible ignorance of Gospel truth, but who have persevered to the end in striving to seek truth and follow the natural law in accord with their own conscience (cf. Rom. 2: 14-16). Even before receiving faith and justification, such persons will have been “not far from the kingdom of God” (Mk 12: 34).  This is the footnote in Harrisons article.
Reply
#26
But it seems you are arguing for an explicit faith known to the person and God but not to others. Where we find an issue is when the observer concludes one's soul is damned due to the visible status of their place before death. In essence, the explicit/implicit argument comes down to judging a person when the explicit faith aspect is followed.

Therefore, I find the idea of explicit faith useless without a definition which considers the distinction in what is known to man vs God. Too easily, it seems, are people willing to condemn anyone who isn't a raving Catholic.

I'm of the position that, if explicit faith is required, God supplies the chance when it will be actually efficacious: right before the sealing of their soul's fate.

Otherwise, I see it as a pointless endeavor on the part of us unwarshed types, being that we don't have the necessary training to even remotely talk about this stuff.
Reply
#27
As I pointed out some time ago in a similar thread, even the so-called Feeneyists do not deny that an invincibly ignorant person can at their deathbed a) profess explicit faith in Christ; and b) be baptised by, for example, their guardian angel. So the whole discussion is really academic, with all 'factions' actually believing the same thing: that because we don't know what happens to the soul when a person is dying we cannot judge any soul's fate. That's all we must know and while we may argue ad nauseam about BoD, it's irrelevant when it comes to evangelisation.
Reply
#28
John 6:54 :

"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."

Since one can not receive the Flesh of the Son of Man outside the church, EENS stands.

I suppose the next argument will be that some schismatics have a valid Eucharist, ergo, EENS does not stand -yawn  :eyeroll:

If it makes people feel better you may try this :  "Inside the Church there is Salvation" so it doesn't sound so "mean-spirited" and "exclusionary".


Reply
#29
"Gidge" Wrote:"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."

Since one can not receive the Flesh of the Son of Man outside the church, EENS stands.
If it were absolutely and totally necessary for salvation to receive Eucharist then we Latins should be punished severely for separating the baptism and the first communion of infants.
Reply
#30
(02-15-2014, 12:15 PM)PolishTrad Wrote:
"Gidge" Wrote:"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."

Since one can not receive the Flesh of the Son of Man outside the church, EENS stands.
If it were absolutely and totally necessary for salvation to receive Eucharist then we Latins should be punished severely for separating the baptism and the first communion of infants.

Our Lord said it, ergo, it IS true.  Is there some modern theologian who knows better than HIM, I think not !

Baptism is the gateway to all the other sacraments (One baptism, not three) and in the Latin church we need to be at the age of reason to receive communion.

I wouldn't think EENS would be such a hot topic on a traditional blog.  ???
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)