Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Any non-Catholic can be saved if he dies in a state of sanctifying grace.
In short, the poster does not truly believe that God can provide for the conversion and baptism of a non-Catholic, and so from there he goes into theological speculation to get around every single word in the dogmatic declarations on EENS, the sacraments, and justification. The mental gymnastics is so overwhelming that at the end he does not know what he believes and ends up with the idea that; Any non-Catholic can be saved if he dies in a state of sanctifying grace. Well, that is like saying anyone that goes to heaven is saved. It says nothing. Yet he thinks he's "cracked the code".He says he is being submissive to the teachings of the Church, that the Church has not definitively decided on the issue of the damnation of those who do not believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, on the other hand, he rejects the teachings of the Church that one must be a sacramentally baptized Catholic in a state of grace to be saved. That is a teaching of the Church too, and yet he vehemently rejects it and hates the teaching with a passion. Interesting.No theologian in at least the first 1500 years of the Church ever taught that Pagans, Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus etc... can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards, and after that time period it was not till the late 1800 that some obscure theologians started pushing the speculation to the point where it was the majority opinion of the theologians at Vatican II. We reject that teaching which was enshrined at Vatican II (indeed, the docuмent constantly brought forward by the poster, the 1949 letter, is referenced in Vatican II). We know that it is a teaching of the Church but it is speculative teaching, strictly tolerated at this point in time. We have the right to reject it. On the other side, the poster rejects the constant teaching of the Church that to be saved one must be a sacramentally baptized member of the Catholic Church in a state of grace at death. We have for years been bringing forward all the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, theologians, that is teach the same as us. It is also Church teaching, and has a longer tradition than the recent streak of salvation by belief in a rewarder God. Not one such "strict interpreter" of EENS has ever been declared a heretic, indeed, they are all Saints. Yet the poster hates the teaching so much that he dedicates all his time to counter it.
Furthermore, no one is excluded from the everlasting possession of the Beatific Vision except for reasons of sin. In the case of an infant who has died without receiving the sacrament of baptism, that sin is not personal, but is original sin, the aversion from God which is consequent upon the offense committed by Adam himself. Obviously, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, an infant who dies in that state will not be punished by the all-just and all-merciful God for some sin which he did not personally commit. But, for such an infant, the Beatific Vision is a good to which the infant is not entitled and which he will not receive. Fenton
The people who do not come into salvific contact with Our Lord do not avail themselves of the salvation which is in Him alone. As a result they are not saved, and they remain in the condition in which they have come into the world, or in the condition in which they have placed themselves through their own personal and mortal sins. If they die in this condition, they inevitably receive the effects which follow upon their condition. They are excluded from the Beatific Vision and, if they pass from this life guilty of mortal sin for which they have not been repentant, they suffer the pain of hell forever. Fenton
A man who feels in this way is inevitably inclined to look upon the effects of Our Lord's redemptive sacrifice as in reality either non-existent or quite unimportant. If the best man can obtain is something to which he is entitled by the very fact of being a man, or something which he is competent to obtain through the exercise of his own natural powers, then of course it is hardly more than a mere verbalism to speak of a redemption. And if God is going to give everlasting life to any man, without regard for any contact with Our Lord, then the most Our Lord could have done has been to obtain some extra and accidental advantages in the supernatural order for those who come and stay in contact with Him. Fenton
Due to mental breakdown, LoT returns to spam mode.
In reality the only motive force for the forgiveness of man's sins is to be found in the redemption by Jesus Christ. And the only possible way for a man to have his own sins remitted is to come into contact with Our Lord and with His salvific power in the one and only social unit which has been divinely constituted as His Mystical body. This means being within His Church as a member or at least by a sincere, even though perhaps only an implicit, desire or intention. The man who is not thus in contact with Our Lord cannot have the remission of sin. And he cannot have the effects that follow upon that remission of sin. Fenton
Moreover, we must not lose sight of the fact that all men stand in need of redemption. There is absolutely no one who can come to the love and friendship of God by his own unaided natural powers. All men need the remission of sin, which is to be found only in the redemptive sacrifice of Our Lord. The infusion or granting of the supernatural life of grace is the positive aspect of the remission of original or mortal sin, and this life of grace is a sharing of the divine life, a sharing which is not to be obtained apart from the Incarnate Word of God. Since the sin of Adam there never has been and there never will be the remission of sin or the granting of the life of sanctifying grace to any human being apart from the force of Our Lord's redemptive sacrifice. Fenton
Dear LOT, as a relative newbie on this forum, I find myself having to ask you, whose truth is it that you profess to love?
I hate falsity and love truth.
The second sentence in the portion of the docuмent translated at the beginning of this chapter brings out the fact that acts which would otherwise be most conducive to salvation are deprived of their effect if they are performed "outside" the bond of unity of the Catholic Church. It teaches that even the reception of the sacraments cannot be "profitable unto salvation," that is, cannot produce their effects in the life of divine grace for those who are outside of the unity of the ecclesiastical body. Furthermore it asserts that no work which of its very nature ought to be salutary can be profitable in the line of salvation unless these works are performed "within" the true Church of Jesus Christ. Fenton