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.https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-10.htm (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-10.htm)
DZ 1716 - In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation.
Leaving aside whether Pius IX and Lefebvre can be reconciled here, is Pius IX's statements in Syllabus of Errors ex cathedra?
The binding power of the Syllabus of Pius IX (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12134b.htm) is differently explained by Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) theologians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm). All are of the opinion that many of the propositions are condemned if not in the Syllabus, then certainly in other final decisions of the infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) teaching authority of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), for instance in the Encyclical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm) "Quanta Cura". There is no agreement, however, on the question whether each thesis condemned in the Syllabus is infallibly (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) false (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05781a.htm), merely because it is condemned in the Syllabus. Many theologians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm) are of the opinion that to the Syllabus as such an infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) teaching authority is to be ascribed, whether due to an ex-cathedra decision by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) or to the subsequent acceptance by the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm). Others question this. So long as Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm) has not decided the question, everyone is free to follow the opinion he chooses. Even should the condemnation of many propositions not possess that unchangeableness peculiar to infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) decisions, nevertheless the binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is beyond doubt (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm). For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal Antonelli (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01583d.htm), is a decision given by the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) the world over. All Catholics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm), therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm)
Whether or not strictly infallible, they're clearly binding on Catholics.Good point. For R + Rs, the encyclicals, etc. of the Conciliar Popes and Vatican II would seem to be similarly "binding." To be clear, I'm less concerned with the "result" here as the logic on which the result is based.
If one keeps questioning the authority of this kind of teaching, then why isn't it OK to be a Modernist, since Modernism was not condemned infallibly either? Where does it end? This narrow view of infallibility would turn the Church into the free-for-all that the Conciliar establishment is.
Do we Traditional Catholics just happen to all agree with St. Pius X's condemnation of Modernism? Is that all there is to it?
Yes, tragically, Archbishop Lefebvre had been misled on this subject. EENS does not mean no salvation except by means of the Church, but, rather, no salvation except IN the Church. Now +Lefebvre claims that by this invisible Baptism of Desire they are, unbeknownst to themselves, in the Church. How is this a lick different from Karl Rathner's Anonymous Christian theology?Its arguments like these that make me very sympathetic to the "Vatican II is reconcilable, but the way it was applied was a total mess" response to the crisis.
Its arguments like these that make me very sympathetic to the "Vatican II is reconcilable, but the way it was applied was a total mess" response to the crisis.
Oh, indeed. I have repeatedly said that if I believed in the ecclesiology held by most Traditonal Catholics, I would without a question hold Vatican II as clearly reconcilable with Tradition ... even if many of its statements were inopportune given the climate they were made in.Its less that I have a particularly strong emotional need to reject the strictest possible position (though I realize, for many, it is) so much as it seems just more probable to me that there's a reconciliation, than it is that even the trad clergy were/are crypto-modernists on this point.
Oh, indeed. I have repeatedly said that if I believed in the ecclesiology held by most Traditonal Catholics, I would without a question hold Vatican II as clearly reconcilable with Tradition ... even if many of its statements were inopportune given the climate they were made in.
Dignitatis Humane honestly seems more difficult to reconcile with The Syllabus logically.
Yes, but even that follows logically from the new ecclesiology.Well with +Lefebvre at least, the word "by" would be false. It would be more like "despite."
People have a right to please God and to save their souls. If people please God and save their souls by following their even-erroneous consciences, then they have a right to follow their even-erroneous consciences. Once you subjectivize salvation, then Religious Liberty simply follows as a logical consequence. If a Prot saves his soul by following his false heretical beliefs, then I could actually be interfering with his salvation by trying to pressure hi to abandon and compromise those things which he believes are necessary for salvation.
But obviously I can't. I've read too much Church teaching and too much from the Church Fathers and Doctors. This is not Catholic teaching to say that the Church is composed of all manner of non-Catholic and even infidel. This was rejected as heretical in the early Church ... as Rahner himself famously admitted.I'm open to changing my mind, but I'd need to do more study to see that the strictest possible formulation of EENS (with no exceptions) was the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers. Right now it seems to me that Augustine and Justin Martyr hold to a formulation that is not quite so strict, but I could be misreading them, and even if I am not, both of them are on their own fallible, and also missing certain steps from the current formulations (Justin Martyr's only definitively covers people like Socrates who were born and died before Christ, while Augustine's allowances for certain Donatists is still a far cry from allowances for Muslims or Hindus. I'm really reluctant to make these kinds of calls as I'm not an expert on patristic theology.
Well with +Lefebvre at least, the word "by" would be false. It would be more like "despite."
Well, there has to be a "by". Absence of some "by" means Pelagianism. They must be doing something to actively please God and cooperate with his grace unto salvation. In other words, a Protestant can attain to salvation by faithfully practicing his Protestantism. And if that's the case, he has a right to do so. It's an awful theological mess.I'd think the by, if we use Lefebvre's logic, would be those elements of Protestantism that are in agreement with Catholicism (obviously there are many), and invincible ignorance, while such certainly does not save, would shield the person from being *automatically* damned solely for his error, such that those elements of Protestantism which are in agreement with Catholicism *could* lead to his salvation if he's perfectly contrite for his mortal sins. Obviously without the sacraments he'd have a way harder time, and I think the danger to souls that would result from allowing him to *openly* practice or to proselytize would be greater than the benefit to his soul caused by doing so, nevermind the fact that God's glory is more important than the salvation of any particular Protestant anyway.
Whether or not strictly infallible, they're clearly binding on Catholics.
How is any Protestant invincibly ignorant of Catholicism? Have you ever listened to Protestant sermons? Half their religion is based on trashing catholic doctrine.The only invincibly ignorant Protestants are little children, but theologically speaking they are effectively Catholics, so they're irrelevant to the discussion I suppose.
How is any Protestant invincibly ignorant of Catholicism? Have you ever listened to Protestant sermons? Half their religion is based on trashing catholic doctrine.Nowadays it seems harder to believe with the internet, but in the past certainly someone could've only heard lies about Catholicism (in, say, Calvin's Geneva) and had no real opportunity to be corrected on said lies.
Nowadays it seems harder to believe with the internet, but in the past certainly someone could've only heard lies about Catholicism (in, say, Calvin's Geneva) and had no real opportunity to be corrected on said lies.I don't think so. At the time of Calvin, the entire culture of Europe was catholic; there was no getting away from it. Protestantism was in its infancy and even Luther/Calvin still held many catholic views (i.e. Luther still prayed to Our Lady, and believed that Mass was a true sacrifice). Geneva was in Switzerland, smack dab in the middle of europe. No one is going to be 100% insulated from catholicism in Switzerland.
I don't think so. At the time of Calvin, the entire culture of Europe was catholic; there was no getting away from it. Protestantism was in its infancy and even Luther/Calvin still held many catholic views (i.e. Luther still prayed to Our Lady, and believed that Mass was a true sacrifice). Geneva was in Switzerland, smack dab in the middle of europe. No one is going to be 100% insulated from catholicism in Switzerland.I mean, most of the serf class never travelled farther than the next village over in their lives. I can't imagine the urban peasantry travelling much farther either unless they worked for traders. If you lived in post-Calvin Geneva there's a good chance the only Catholics you ever met were ones being burned at the stake.
I mean, most of the serf class never travelled farther than the next village over in their lives. I can't imagine the urban peasantry travelling much farther either unless they worked for traders. If you lived in post-Calvin Geneva there's a good chance the only Catholics you ever met were ones being burned at the stake.I’d never argue that someone outside the visible church “was saved”. At most Id say in certain cases it’s a possibility, but I’d never presume
Go beyond that, to 1700s Sweden say. What would some Swedish farmer in Uppland know about Catholicism other than that it was a religion practiced by a bunch of Frenchmen, Italians and Bavarians hundreds or thousands of miles away?
I'm not arguing they were saved, but I don't think they'd have had any chances to learn about Catholicism from Catholics. They'd have to hope for some freak miracle like a missionary sneaking his way through Sweden in disguise, just like how some tribesman would have to hope for the freak miracle of a missionary stumbling upon his tribe in who knows where. So only by God's intervention, but then I suppose all salvation is by divine intervention regardless.