Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Who Can be Saved? By Card Avery Dulles  (Read 5980 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jerm

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • Reputation: +35/-27
  • Gender: Male
Re: Who Can be Saved? By Card Avery Dulles
« Reply #105 on: April 07, 2020, 11:15:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Implicit Desire could be anything, depending on which BoDer you ask.

    Explicit Desire:  "I want to be baptized."
    Implicit Desire 1:  "I want to be a Catholic." without explicitly wanting Baptism.
    Implicit Desire 2:  "I want to do whatever God wants." Implicitly to become Catholic, implicitly to be Baptized.
    Implicit Desire 3:  "I am sincerely seeking truth." Implicit to find God, implicit to do what God wants, implicit to be Catholic, implicit to be Baptized.

    Lots of BoDers cling to Implicit 3 ... which reduces Church EENS dogma to nonsense.

    Also, the BoDers keep hiding behind implicit desire for Baptism.  What we're talking about is whether implicit FAITH is possible.
    I've been wondering about this for a while: couldn't you agree with the subsists clause of Vatican 2, but also believe Explicit Desire is required for salvation? To say that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church is only to say that certain salvific elements that are completely fulfilled in the Church can also be found outside of the Church. So, for instance, a Buddhist who doesn't believe in God can at least know that the world isn't fulfilling and tries to find a spiritual path to overcome that. 
    But that isn't to say that they're going to be saved, either. And, in fact, Vatican 2's docuмents never explicitly say that he or she will be saved if he stays a Buddhist. Just interacting with the little piece of the Church that is "outside" of the Catholic Church doesn't mean you're going to be saved. As Dulles even says, Vatican 2 doesn't say implicit faith will save you: it just says that those who sincerely seek God will find the grace to be saved- which can be interpreted in an Augustinian way too, in that those who sincerely seek God will be baptized into the Church, or a Thomistic way, whereby they will at least have explicit faith in the Church. Ambiguous? Yes. But I can see why someone would be inclined to say that Vatican 2 was still valid given the problems with contrary explanations and their lack of visible unity of government and visible unity of communion.
    The last thirteen paragraphs of this article have no explicit quotes from Vatican 2 whatsoever. Dulles is simply doing his own weird theology inspired by the modernistic Rahner. All I am trying to say here is that it certainly seems like Dulles has to make some major logical leaps not included in the council to get from Vatican 2's subsists clause to his universal salvation ecclesiology. Then again, perhaps this also casts some significant doubt onto the many "traditionalists" whose ecclesiology ultimately boils down not even to Vatican 2's, but to Dulles' theology. That Jews, Muslims, and those who aren't Catholic at death can't be saved at all is dogma.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12116
    • Reputation: +7644/-2307
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Who Can be Saved? By Card Avery Dulles
    « Reply #106 on: April 07, 2020, 12:44:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    If we understand Trent Session 6, Chapter 4 to not be teaching BOD, then our reading and understanding of Trent is contrary to how St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine's read and understood the same words.  Either we aren't understanding Trent correctly, or both St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine didn't understand Trent.
    St Bellarmine was 3 yrs old when Trent began and a teenager when the council closed.  St Alphonsus lived long after Trent.  Neither was a Council Father, so they aren't infallible in their comments on it.
    .
    Secondly, both +Bellarmine and +Alphonsus teach that BOD only applies to catechumens, which is 100% consistent with the perspective of Trent's BOD. 
    .
    Thirdly, +Bellarmine mentions that he thinks (personal opinion, not church teaching) that it "seems harsh" that the invincibly ignorant would go to hell.  No one is obligated to agree with him.
    .
    Fourthly, +Alphonsus has written on both sides of the BOD debate, just like +Augustine.  So which one of his writings do we take as his official stand?
    .
    Fifthly, +Alphonsus mentions "implicit desire" (which is a liberalization of St Augustine's, St Thomas' and Trent's (and other saints') views) but...his "implicit desire" is NOT the same as the pre-modernism of the 1800s and modernism of the 1900s where "implicit desire" has been so liberalized as to mean "implicit faith in a God that exists".  So, you have to define terms and compare meanings on this topic.  Terms and meanings have changed, and been liberalized, multiple times since the 1500s.
    .
    Finally, the whole point is that St Augustine, St Ambrose, St Thomas, St Bellarmine and St Alphonsus (most of the time) all agree with Trent that BOD only applies (in theory) to formal catechumens who are learning the Faith.  To say that BOD applies to anyone else, is to believe in quasi-heresy which has no basis in Church History. 


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12116
    • Reputation: +7644/-2307
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Who Can be Saved? By Card Avery Dulles
    « Reply #107 on: April 07, 2020, 12:54:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    I've been wondering about this for a while: couldn't you agree with the subsists clause of Vatican 2, but also believe Explicit Desire is required for salvation? To say that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church is only to say that certain salvific elements that are completely fulfilled in the Church can also be found outside of the Church. So, for instance, a Buddhist who doesn't believe in God can at least know that the world isn't fulfilling and tries to find a spiritual path to overcome that. 
    No, the "subsists" argument is heresy because it cheapens the definition, solemnity and truths of the "Church of Christ".  To be with Christ, you must hold ALL of His Divine Truths; not 90% or 70%.  Christ cannot be divided so that we can say that His Church is part over here but fully over there.  As He told us, "He who is not with Me, is against Me."  We must accept the WHOLE Christ, not just part of Him.  There are certainly truths of the Church which non-Catholic religions hold, but it is heresy to describe these truths as "salvific elements" (for they can in no way save anyone, just like half of a car engine cannot run).
    .
    Quote
    As Dulles even says, Vatican 2 doesn't say implicit faith will save you: it just says that those who sincerely seek God will find the grace to be saved- which can be interpreted in an Augustinian way too, in that those who sincerely seek God will be baptized into the Church, or a Thomistic way, whereby they will at least have explicit faith in the Church.
    St Augustine and St Thomas agree wholeheartedly in this.  They also agree with Trent.  V2 agrees with them, but then contradicts itself using the "subsists" phrase.  This ambiguity is heresy because the Church, and all Catholics, have the duty to preach the pure, unadulterated Truth, at all times, in all circuмstances.

    Offline jerm

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 127
    • Reputation: +35/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Who Can be Saved? By Card Avery Dulles
    « Reply #108 on: April 07, 2020, 01:08:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, the "subsists" argument is heresy because it cheapens the definition, solemnity and truths of the "Church of Christ".  To be with Christ, you must hold ALL of His Divine Truths; not 90% or 70%.  Christ cannot be divided so that we can say that His Church is part over here but fully over there.  As He told us, "He who is not with Me, is against Me."  We must accept the WHOLE Christ, not just part of Him.  There are certainly truths of the Church which non-Catholic religions hold, but it is heresy to describe these truths as "salvific elements" (for they can in no way save anyone, just like half of a car engine cannot run).
    .St Augustine and St Thomas agree wholeheartedly in this.  They also agree with Trent.  V2 agrees with them, but then contradicts itself using the "subsists" phrase.  This ambiguity is heresy because the Church, and all Catholics, have the duty to preach the pure, unadulterated Truth, at all times, in all circuмstances.
    I also agree with St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus. I would not apply BoD to anyone beyond the catechumen, nor would anyone trying to make a coherent ecclesiology. I agree that you must hold all of Christ's Divine Truths. 
    What I'm not convinced of is that the subsists ecclesiology prevents that. I know it sounds a bit unintuitive, but even as early as the conflict with the Donatists, St. Augustine professed that their baptisms were valid. In fact, many Protestant baptisms are valid as long as they use the proper Trinitarian formula. For something to be a salvific element is not to say that it will save, but that it will lead the heretic to the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ fully subsists, and outside of which no one can be saved. The salvific elements do not save on their own, and if a Muslim dies only believing in God and with "implicit faith," he will be damned. Baptism, or at least the votum, is still necessary. 
    I just don't see any explicit indication that the salvific elements can save in the actual text of Vatican 2. In fact, Fr. Sebastiaan Tromp not only contributed the subsists clause in Vatican 2, but was actually the ghostwriter of Mystici Corporis Christi. I do agree that it can be taken in a whole bunch of different directions, but I don't know if it necessarily goes into the direction of heresy.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12116
    • Reputation: +7644/-2307
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Who Can be Saved? By Card Avery Dulles
    « Reply #109 on: April 07, 2020, 01:42:07 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    For something to be a salvific element is not to say that it will save,
    Logically, if the modernists used the term "salvific element" but then say, as you do, that it doesn't mean these "elements" can save, then the use of the term "salvific" is contradictory, confusing and heretical.  The reason why they used the term is PRECISELY to IMPLY that such elements CAN save.  The liberals use this phrase to teach 'universal salvation' to their 'protestant brethren' and to further the heretical, one-world, new age ecuмenism.
    .
    Quote
    The salvific elements do not save on their own, and if a Muslim dies only believing in God and with "implicit faith," he will be damned. Baptism, or at least the votum, is still necessary.
     Nowhere in V2 is this made clear.  So, if one reads V2 by itself, one can easily be led to believe that one can be saved outside the Faith.
    .
    Quote
    I just don't see any explicit indication that the salvific elements can save in the actual text of Vatican 2. In fact, Fr. Sebastiaan Tromp not only contributed the subsists clause in Vatican 2, but was actually the ghostwriter of Mystici Corporis Christi. I do agree that it can be taken in a whole bunch of different directions, but I don't know if it necessarily goes into the direction of heresy.
    Le'ts say that Catholic Doctrine = A.  Heresy does not have to say "not A" or "I completely reject A" or "A is wrong".  Heresy can simply be "A + part B".  Or "A + Z" or "A minus C".  You are defining heresy in too strict of terms.  Heresy is any addition, deletion, edit, implication, or alteration of Dogma (however small).
    .
    To say that the Christ's Church "subsists in" the Catholic Church is heresy.  Pure and simple.  The Catholic dogma = Christ's Church IS the Catholic Church.   
    .
    To imply, as V2 did, that Christ's Church ALSO exists partly in other religions is heresy.  You can say that certain truths exist in other religions, but these truths are not equal to Christ's Church, which by definition, is ALL Truth and the FULLNESS of truth.
    .
    As an example, if you mix together Kool-Aid with water, you get a new drink.  You can say that a Kool-Aid mix "subsists in" the water, but you cannot say that water "subsists in" the Kool-Aid.  This is backwards.  There is no Kool-Aid without water but there can be water without Kool-Aid. 
    .
    In the same way, Christ's Church is made up of ALL the Divine Truths of the Faith.  You can say that the Divine Truths "subsist in" Christ's Church, but you cannot say that Christ's Church "subsist in" the Divine Truths.  This is backwards.  The Divine Truths may be partly believed outside of Christ's Church, but you cannot have Christ's Church without the FULLNESS of Truth. 


    Offline jerm

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 127
    • Reputation: +35/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Who Can be Saved? By Card Avery Dulles
    « Reply #110 on: April 07, 2020, 02:44:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Logically, if the modernists used the term "salvific element" but then say, as you do, that it doesn't mean these "elements" can save, then the use of the term "salvific" is contradictory, confusing and heretical.  The reason why they used the term is PRECISELY to IMPLY that such elements CAN save.  The liberals use this phrase to teach 'universal salvation' to their 'protestant brethren' and to further the heretical, one-world, new age ecuмenism.
    . Nowhere in V2 is this made clear.  So, if one reads V2 by itself, one can easily be led to believe that one can be saved outside the Faith.
    .Le'ts say that Catholic Doctrine = A.  Heresy does not have to say "not A" or "I completely reject A" or "A is wrong".  Heresy can simply be "A + part B".  Or "A + Z" or "A minus C".  You are defining heresy in too strict of terms.  Heresy is any addition, deletion, edit, implication, or alteration of Dogma (however small).
    .
    To say that the Christ's Church "subsists in" the Catholic Church is heresy.  Pure and simple.  The Catholic dogma = Christ's Church IS the Catholic Church.  
    .
    To imply, as V2 did, that Christ's Church ALSO exists partly in other religions is heresy.  You can say that certain truths exist in other religions, but these truths are not equal to Christ's Church, which by definition, is ALL Truth and the FULLNESS of truth.
    .
    As an example, if you mix together Kool-Aid with water, you get a new drink.  You can say that a Kool-Aid mix "subsists in" the water, but you cannot say that water "subsists in" the Kool-Aid.  This is backwards.  There is no Kool-Aid without water but there can be water without Kool-Aid.
    .
    In the same way, Christ's Church is made up of ALL the Divine Truths of the Faith.  You can say that the Divine Truths "subsist in" Christ's Church, but you cannot say that Christ's Church "subsist in" the Divine Truths.  This is backwards.  The Divine Truths may be partly believed outside of Christ's Church, but you cannot have Christ's Church without the FULLNESS of Truth.
    I am describing a possible theory, not necessarily my actual thoughts.
    When I hear the phrase salvific element, I don't get the impression that it alone can save. I get the impression that it is merely an element of salvation that can lead us to the fullness of the necessity of means, in other words, the Catholic Church. If you can find me a dogmatic quotation verifying that the salvific elements alone can save, then please do. I don't see any implication of that in Vatican 2.
    I agree that Vatican 2 can be taken in a lot of different directions, but I'm not sure if it can be definitively ruled out as you have. The liberals take it in a modernistic direction, however. They are heretical and wrong. Yet, I'm not saying that heresy "not A" must COMPLETELY REJECT dogma "A." However, "not A" *is* A + B, A + Z, or A - C. All of those are not A, and all of them would be heresy. However, I'm wondering whether EENS can be dogma A, and that the Church of Christ also subsists in the Catholic Church can be dogma B. There is no necessary incompatibility here. You can say that there are salvific elements that don't save on their own outside of the visible hierarchy of the Catholic Church, such as valid Protestant baptisms, while also saying that you need to be in the Catholic Church, in which all of those salvific elements are present, to be saved. (Because you can't be PARTIALLY saved, of course.)
    You said that "Christ's Church is made up of ALL the Divine Truths of the Faith.  You can say that the Divine Truths "subsist in" Christ's Church, but you cannot say that Christ's Church "subsist in" the Divine Truths.  This is backwards.  The Divine Truths may be partly believed outside of Christ's Church, but you cannot have Christ's Church without the FULLNESS of Truth." 

    This is precisely what Vatican 2 seems to imply. That's why they're salvific elements and not the necessary means to salvation. They don't save on their own. In my opinion, this theory needs to be looked at thoroughly before we reject what the vast majority of people think is the legitimate hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Because, otherwise, we lose visible unity of government and visible unity of communion, which as Satis Cognitum says, are essential to the constitution of the Church. This is very important.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12116
    • Reputation: +7644/-2307
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Who Can be Saved? By Card Avery Dulles
    « Reply #111 on: April 07, 2020, 03:30:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    When I hear the phrase salvific element, I don't get the impression that it alone can save. I get the impression that it is merely an element of salvation that can lead us to the fullness of the necessity of means, in other words, the Catholic Church.
    You don't have this impression because you know your Faith and you are interpreting this phrase in a traditional light.  Those that don't know their Faith, and those who are modernist heretics, can use the phrase "salvific elements" to argue that V2 teaches that those non-Catholics who are "sincere" can be saved.  In fact, that sincerity and good will can save, is said by V2 in its other docuмents (I forget which).
    .
    The correct phrase should've been "truthful elements", in that, some non-Catholic religions have some truths in them.  This is obviously correct.  If these elements have nothing to do with salvation, as you argue, then the term "salvific" is unnecessary.  Why was it used?  Of course, it was put in there by modernists so that they can use this phrase, along with other phrases like "sincere" and "ecuмenism" and "good will" and "religious freedom" to spin together the story that non-catholics can be saved.  And they've spun this story well and V2 is the leading reason why 99% of population will accept the coming one-world-religion.
    .
    Quote
    If you can find me a dogmatic quotation verifying that the salvific elements alone can save, then please do. I don't see any implication of that in Vatican 2.
    If the phrase "salvific elements" has nothing to do with salvation, then why use the word "salvific"?  You make no sense.  Your argument is silly.  It's plainly obvious.
    .
    Quote
    I agree that Vatican 2 can be taken in a lot of different directions, but I'm not sure if it can be definitively ruled out as you have. The liberals take it in a modernistic direction, however. They are heretical and wrong. Yet, I'm not saying that heresy "not A" must COMPLETELY REJECT dogma "A." However, "not A" *is* A + B, A + Z, or A - C. All of those are not A, and all of them would be heresy. However, I'm wondering whether EENS can be dogma A, and that the Church of Christ also subsists in the Catholic Church can be dogma B. There is no necessary incompatibility here. You can say that there are salvific elements that don't save on their own outside of the visible hierarchy of the Catholic Church, such as valid Protestant baptisms, while also saying that you need to be in the Catholic Church, in which all of those salvific elements are present, to be saved. (Because you can't be PARTIALLY saved, of course.)
    If a salvific element doesn't save, then it's a contradiction in meaning.  If a salvific element of the protestant religion can save outside of the Catholic Faith, then that's heresy.  So the phrase, as it's used in that V2 passage, is either illogical nonsense or heresy.  Pick one or the other.  Either way, it is wrong.
    .
    Quote
    You said that "Christ's Church is made up of ALL the Divine Truths of the Faith.  You can say that the Divine Truths "subsist in" Christ's Church, but you cannot say that Christ's Church "subsist in" the Divine Truths.  This is backwards.  The Divine Truths may be partly believed outside of Christ's Church, but you cannot have Christ's Church without the FULLNESS of Truth." 
    .
    This is precisely what Vatican 2 seems to imply. That's why they're salvific elements and not the necessary means to salvation. They don't save on their own. In my opinion, this theory needs to be looked at thoroughly before we reject what the vast majority of people think is the legitimate hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Because, otherwise, we lose visible unity of government and visible unity of communion, which as Satis Cognitum says, are essential to the constitution of the Church. This is very important.
    You are like most conservative catholics who try to read V2 in a positive light - you infer things which simply aren't there.  You ignore plain English and interpret a traditional meaning, whilst ignoring the obvious heretical problems. 
    .
    Non-catholic religions have certain Divine Truths; they do not have ANY salvific elements.  They cannot save, period.  V2 says they have both.  If V2 had simply said that some Divine Truths are contained partly in non-catholic religions, fine.  But it went beyond this boundary and implied that a religion with only PART of Divine Truth can save.  Again, as it is written, in plain English, this is either illogical, imprecise, faulty theology or it's heresy.   You choose.  Either way, it's wrong.

    Offline jerm

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 127
    • Reputation: +35/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Who Can be Saved? By Card Avery Dulles
    « Reply #112 on: April 07, 2020, 05:02:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You don't have this impression because you know your Faith and you are interpreting this phrase in a traditional light.  Those that don't know their Faith, and those who are modernist heretics, can use the phrase "salvific elements" to argue that V2 teaches that those non-Catholics who are "sincere" can be saved.  In fact, that sincerity and good will can save, is said by V2 in its other docuмents (I forget which).
    .
    The correct phrase should've been "truthful elements", in that, some non-Catholic religions have some truths in them.  This is obviously correct.  If these elements have nothing to do with salvation, as you argue, then the term "salvific" is unnecessary.  Why was it used?  Of course, it was put in there by modernists so that they can use this phrase, along with other phrases like "sincere" and "ecuмenism" and "good will" and "religious freedom" to spin together the story that non-catholics can be saved.  And they've spun this story well and V2 is the leading reason why 99% of population will accept the coming one-world-religion.
    .If the phrase "salvific elements" has nothing to do with salvation, then why use the word "salvific"?  You make no sense.  Your argument is silly.  It's plainly obvious.
    .If a salvific element doesn't save, then it's a contradiction in meaning.  If a salvific element of the protestant religion can save outside of the Catholic Faith, then that's heresy.  So the phrase, as it's used in that V2 passage, is either illogical nonsense or heresy.  Pick one or the other.  Either way, it is wrong.
    .You are like most conservative catholics who try to read V2 in a positive light - you infer things which simply aren't there.  You ignore plain English and interpret a traditional meaning, whilst ignoring the obvious heretical problems.
    .
    Non-catholic religions have certain Divine Truths; they do not have ANY salvific elements.  They cannot save, period.  V2 says they have both.  If V2 had simply said that some Divine Truths are contained partly in non-catholic religions, fine.  But it went beyond this boundary and implied that a religion with only PART of Divine Truth can save.  Again, as it is written, in plain English, this is either illogical, imprecise, faulty theology or it's heresy.   You choose.  Either way, it's wrong.
    Here is what Lumen Gentium states:
    "This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity."

    I don't know that the text is saying that people can be saved only with those elements of sanctification and truth present in other religions. An atheist turned Jew will likely become a better person by believing in one monotheistic God, and those elements of truth and sanctification naturally lead us to the true faith. If the person dies a Jew, then we know he wasn't saved, despite the sanctifying and truthful elements he encountered. If you can find me that citation confirming that implicit desire for the faith can save, then I'll concede the possibility entirely. That would confirm it. But we should make a major effort to interpret the docuмents in a traditional light before bringing unity of government and communion into contention.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12116
    • Reputation: +7644/-2307
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Who Can be Saved? By Card Avery Dulles
    « Reply #113 on: April 07, 2020, 08:25:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This passage is heretical because it subtly and devilishly splits the “Church of Christ” from the “Catholic Church” and explains them as 2 different things, when in fact, doctrinally, they are one and the same.  
    .
    It says that the Catholic Church is the visible society where Christ’s Church is organized, but ...it then heretically implies that Christ’s Church, HAS AN INVISIBLE SIDE TO IT, which is apart from the visible, Catholic Church.  Then it further heretically says that there are “sanctifying” elements in this non-visible, non-Catholic, Church of Christ.  This is total modernist garbage.  
    .
    The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.  Both visibly and invisibly.  They are one and the same, in degree, and in all things.  There is no Church of Christ without the Catholic Church and there is no Church of Christ outside, invisible, apart or in addition to, the Catholic Church.  You cannot separate these 2 ideas.  Those who wrote such things are anathema.  

    Offline jerm

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 127
    • Reputation: +35/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Who Can be Saved? By Card Avery Dulles
    « Reply #114 on: April 07, 2020, 09:09:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This passage is heretical because it subtly and devilishly splits the “Church of Christ” from the “Catholic Church” and explains them as 2 different things, when in fact, doctrinally, they are one and the same.  
    .
    It says that the Catholic Church is the visible society where Christ’s Church is organized, but ...it then heretically implies that Christ’s Church, HAS AN INVISIBLE SIDE TO IT, which is apart from the visible, Catholic Church.  Then it further heretically says that there are “sanctifying” elements in this non-visible, non-Catholic, Church of Christ.  This is total modernist garbage.  
    .
    The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.  Both visibly and invisibly.  They are one and the same, in degree, and in all things.  There is no Church of Christ without the Catholic Church and there is no Church of Christ outside, invisible, apart or in addition to, the Catholic Church.  You cannot separate these 2 ideas.  Those who wrote such things are anathema.  
    Do valid Protestant baptisms take place in the visible Catholic Church?

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12116
    • Reputation: +7644/-2307
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Who Can be Saved? By Card Avery Dulles
    « Reply #115 on: April 07, 2020, 09:39:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is no such thing as a Protestant baptism because baptism is a catholic sacrament.  There are only catholic baptisms performed by Protestants.  Yet baptisms can be even performed by atheists, Jews and heretics too.  So there is no contradiction. 
    .
    When one is baptized by a Protestant, they become 100% catholic and are part of the visible church, who, because God in His Providence decided to bestow this sacramental character on the person, they are now under the spiritual authority of the pope. 
    .
    Only when the person grows up, and rejects the Catholic Faith (by accepting Protestant heresies) is the person then a schismatic and is guilty of rejecting the Truth.  
    .
    But all valid baptisms are Catholic baptisms.  A Protestant baptism would be a parody of it, using incorrect words or only being immersed/dunked in water and then only generally “accepting Christ”. This is obviously invalid and baptism doesn’t occur. 


    Offline jerm

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 127
    • Reputation: +35/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Who Can be Saved? By Card Avery Dulles
    « Reply #116 on: April 07, 2020, 09:54:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is no such thing as a Protestant baptism because baptism is a catholic sacrament.  There are only catholic baptisms performed by Protestants.  Yet baptisms can be even performed by atheists, Jews and heretics too.  So there is no contradiction.
    .
    When one is baptized by a Protestant, they become 100% catholic and are part of the visible church, who, because God in His Providence decided to bestow this sacramental character on the person, they are now under the spiritual authority of the pope.
    .
    Only when the person grows up, and rejects the Catholic Faith (by accepting Protestant heresies) is the person then a schismatic and is guilty of rejecting the Truth.  
    .
    But all valid baptisms are Catholic baptisms.  A Protestant baptism would be a parody of it, using incorrect words or only being immersed/dunked in water and then only generally “accepting Christ”. This is obviously invalid and baptism doesn’t occur.
    I agree with this. There is no good reason for anyone to go from Catholicism to any other religion and no one can be saved in any other religion. But I still do not see a problem with Vatican 2 per se! 
    Christ obviously acts beyond the Catholic Church, trying to get people to the one true Church. Just associating with those sanctifying elements cannot save, though, and I see no evidence to suggest that it does even according to Vatican 2. If there was evidence for it, then I'd imagine that Dulles would have mentioned it.

    Offline jerm

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 127
    • Reputation: +35/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Who Can be Saved? By Card Avery Dulles
    « Reply #117 on: April 07, 2020, 10:00:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I definitely take more of a sede-doubtist position on the whole of Vatican 2, though. I'm trying to argue that there may be SOME way to reconcile V2 with tradition, but it's only really a logical possibility, and not one that I can even entirely believe. But it's still POSSIBLE. The valid Bishops of the Church still provide unity of Communion and Government, methinks, even in this era of confusion.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12116
    • Reputation: +7644/-2307
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Who Can be Saved? By Card Avery Dulles
    « Reply #118 on: April 07, 2020, 10:14:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Christ obviously acts beyond the Catholic Church, trying to get people to the one true Church. 

    Christ gives all men, every moment of their life, potential actual graces.  They can either accept or reject these graces.  But actual grace is not sanctifying, except for those Catholics who are already in the state of grace.  Non-Catholics can never be in the state of grace so the actual graces they accept do not sanctify but only prod them towards the Church, for their conversion. 


    Quote
    Just associating with those sanctifying elements cannot save, though,
    You are using incorrect theological language.  There can be no sanctifying elements outside the Church because the only means of sanctification is through the 7 sacraments, which do not, and cannot, exist outside the Church.  Actual grace does not sanctify.  Only sanctifying grace sanctifies.  Only sanctifying grace is found in the Catholic Church.  V2 is wrong. 
    .

    Quote
    I'm trying to argue that there may be SOME way to reconcile V2 with tradition, but it's only really a logical possibility, and not one that I can even entirely believe. But it's still POSSIBLE.
    No, not possible.  After 50 years, it’s beyond a doubt that V2 is heretical.  


    Quote
    The valid Bishops of the Church still provide unity of Communion and Government, methinks, even in this era of confusion.
    Just because V2 is heretical doesn’t mean that sedevacantism must be held.  They aren’t connected logically.  There are plenty of reasons to be a sedevacantist and they have nothing to do with V2.  The council wasn’t doctrinal and it never claimed to be infallible so its heresies do not affect the status of the pope.  But that’s another topic I don’t want to get into...

    Offline jerm

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 127
    • Reputation: +35/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Who Can be Saved? By Card Avery Dulles
    « Reply #119 on: April 07, 2020, 11:08:35 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you for helping me unpack this. I think you're right about V2 being heretical. God bless you.