Author Topic: Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus (Read 22152 times)

Raoul76 · « **Reply #60 on:** September 02, 2009, 11:53:54 PM »

I hate to do this, but I think Catholic Martyr is right about the Baltimore Catechism. I'm beginning to understand why he and Feeney are so disturbed about this issue. The BC displays some serious abuse of the "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" dogma.

Quote

"1613. You are much more tolerant towards Pagans than you are towards Protestants whom you doom to hell because they don't belong to your Church.
The Catholic Church does not teach that Protestants are doomed to hell. As a matter of fact, an American Catholic priest, Father Leonard Feeney, began in 1949 to preach that such was the Catholic teaching. He was warned both by Archbishop Cushing of Boston, and then by the Holy See itself, that he was preaching wrong doctrine and misrepresenting Catholic teaching."

I believe that a Protestant who makes an act of the will desiring to be joined with the Catholic Church before death has the POSSIBILITY of being saved. But this just flats out states that Protestants are not doomed, with no qualification, as if they can remain in their error with no repentance and still have a chance. Not to mention the gloating over Father Feeney's defeat feels way too personal.

Father Feeney may have been right about the Americanist tendencies of this catechism and I am automatically skeptical of any Catholic doctrine emanating from a country where almost all the priests and bishops not only accept but rejoice over the separation of Church and state. But I still believe in BoD and BoB.

That doesn't mean I believe all unbaptized catechumens will be saved. I believe simply that it is within God's power, but that only in rare instances would He break His own rule, and the rule is that baptism is necessary.

As usual Pius X says it best in HIS catechism, also quoted in that huge chunk of text granted to us by Lover_of_Truth:

"17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."

Notice here not only love of God is needed but the desire for actual baptism in the CATHOLIC CHURCH. The movement of the soul towards "God" as that particular soul understands God is not enough; the movement of the soul must be towards the Church outside of which no one can be saved, showing that that soul knows the true God. Here Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is not violated.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #61 on:** September 03, 2009, 12:21:33 AM »

CM says about the Council of Trent statement "... laver of regeneration OR the desire thereof"...

Quote

But the problem for you is twofold if you are advocating the false translation that it can be effected with only one or the other.

First, you have to admit that a person who receives baptism, even though they are kicking and screaming in defiance, even if they are forced, and do not desire the sacrament, they are still justified. Otherwise you are simply being arbitrary.

Well, aren't babies brought to the baptismal font often seen to be kicking and screaming in defiance? Ha ha.

This statement of Trent is only concerned with rebirth through water, not rebirth through the Holy Ghost. But an adult who desires baptism has ALREADY been born again of the Holy Ghost, even if he doesn't attain the water. Just as some babies may attain the water but not be born again of the Spirit until they reach the age of reason years and years later.

If a baby can be saved with just the water, as it is dogmatic that babies who die after baptism are saved, why can't an adult be saved having been born again of the Holy Spirit but without the water? Actually, the latter scenario seems far more plausible to me. ( I grant you that a baby may be reborn through the Holy Spirit at the same time he is reborn through the water, but that is a complex subject I have not researched yet ).

Christ does say you must be born again of water and the Holy Spirit but then in another place He only says "spirit." Just as in one place He says you must eat His body and drink His blood to have eternal life; while in another he only says "body." The Council of Trent determined on this basis to give communion in only one species.

Christ seems to give preference to rebirth through the Holy Ghost over rebirth through water, just as he gives preference to eating His body over drinking His blood. Undoubtedly He anticipated this debate and I think He gave a very clear answer. REBIRTH THROUGH THE SPIRIT IS ENOUGH FOR SALVATION. AND EATING HIS BODY IS ENOUGH.

You refuse to acknowledge this point. If you are going to be literal and say we must be born again of both the water and the Holy Spirit, then why not be equally literal and say we must eat both His body and drink His blood? Why not reject Trent and join the Hussites?

As for the hypothetical person "forced" into baptism, I don't think it even occurred to the theologians of Trent. Such a person clearly would not have their sins washed away but the Trent doctors don't need to say that explicitly, as it is so obvious to common sense.

CM · « **Reply #62 on:** September 03, 2009, 12:24:35 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

What about infants who are baptized by non-Catholic priests and/or ministers?

It is a dogma that the baptism performed by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, using the proper matter and with the intention to do what the Church does is valid.

It is a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium that children who have not yet attained the use of reason, which is around 7 years old, are not bound by the Divine Law (cannot actual sin), and thus if they died after being validly baptized, but before the age of reason, would die as Catholics, and go straight to heaven.

CM · « **Reply #63 on:** September 03, 2009, 12:32:52 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

As usual Pius X says it best in HIS catechism

Now you are muddying up the waters again. The Catechism that bears his name was originally released as "A Compendium of Christian Doctrine" and was not written by him. It was compiled from the many books of text in use in the Dioceses of Italy, along with texts previously approved of from the Bishops of Piemonte, Liguria, Lombardy, Emilia and Tuscany. Furthermore, in promulgating it, Pius X made no move to say that it was binding on all the faithful. It is entirely possible, and based on his stance against Modernism, I firmly believe, that it was modified after he had given his approval.

Quote from: Raoul76

Notice here not only love of God is needed but the desire for actual baptism in the CATHOLIC CHURCH. The movement of the soul towards "God" as that particular soul understands God is not enough; the movement of the soul must be towards the Church outside of which no one can be saved, showing that that soul knows the true God. Here Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is not violated.

Only when you understand Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus to mean something different than whatthe ex cathedra decrees say.

CM · « **Reply #64 on:** September 03, 2009, 12:39:04 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

CM says about the Council of Trent statement "... laver of regeneration OR the desire thereof"...

Quote
But the problem for you is twofold if you are advocating the false translation that it can be effected with only one or the other.

First, you have to admit that a person who receives baptism, even though they are kicking and screaming in defiance, even if they are forced, and do not desire the sacrament, they are still justified. Otherwise you are simply being arbitrary.

Well, aren't babies brought to the baptismal font often seen to be kicking and screaming in defiance? Ha ha.

The Decree on Jurstification is clearly speaking of those who have attained the use of reason and free will, such as to be bound by the Divine Law. Those who are capable of desiring the sacrament. Read the whole decree, all the chapter therein, and you will see that this is true. The decree does not treat of infants, or imbeciles.

And most of the rest of what you say is based on your own interpretation of Scripture, without referencing the Solemn Magisterial teachings of the Church, whereby they are properly contextualized. Any time the Church has interpreted St. John chapter 3 verse 5, it has done so in a way as to make clear that there are no exceptions.

Quote from: Raoul76

As for the hypothetical person "forced" into baptism, I don't think it even occurred to the theologians of Trent. Such a person clearly would not have their sins washed away but the Trent doctors don't need to say that explicitly, as it is so obvious to common sense.

The Fathers of Trent had in mind to condemn the Protestant heresies. If a catechumen had fallen for these heresies, and had come to believe that his 'faith' alone could save him, he might have been so inclined to receive baptism, merely for the sake of human respect, while secretly despising the sacrament. Such a one would certainly not be justified.