Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: XavierSem on April 09, 2019, 04:56:03 AM

Title: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: XavierSem on April 09, 2019, 04:56:03 AM
There was a question on what precisely Vatican II, as clarified by the CCC, teaches and does not teach on EENS and Ecclesiology (closely related, as the doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church, is obviously connected to the Church's understanding of Her own nature). Let's take just 4 paras to begin with.

(1) Firstly, does Vatican II and the CCC say non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists etc) can be saved? Imho, the answer is no.
(2) Secondly, does Vatican II say non-Catholics like Protestants and Orthodox, who die as such, can be saved? This we'll leave for later. 

First, CCC 161, it seems, says that nobody can be saved without belief in Jesus, conformably to the dogmatic Creed of St. Athanasius.

"161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'" http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/161.htm (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/161.htm)

What does CCC 846-848 say? It is ambiguous. 846 says, those who are knowingly separate from the Church cannot be saved. 847 says those who do not know Christ, but seek God with a sincere heart moved by grace trying to do His Will may be saved, but 848 seems to clarify that these persons, to be saved, will have to be brought by God to faith in Christ, in ways known to Himself (e.g. before death).

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm) Thoughts on whether Vatican II and the CCC deny EENS?
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Stubborn on April 09, 2019, 06:18:27 AM
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

There is so much wrong with the CCC, I only highlighted a few things.

1) Only in the new church are dogmas re-formulated - and reduced to a mere "affirmation" in the process. They necessarily had to reformulate it and reduce it to an affirmation, in order for it to fit the new religion of the newchurch.

2) The newchurch teaches in it's catechism that the safest route to take is ignorance. Inherent in their teachings is that "ignorance is bliss." This teaching goes back to at least the Baltimore Catechism, and is now a doctrine of sorts of newchurch.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Last Tradhican on April 09, 2019, 07:36:42 AM
There was a question on what precisely Vatican II, as clarified by the CCC, teaches and does not teach on EENS and Ecclesiology ....

(1) Firstly, does Vatican II and the CCC say non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists etc) can be saved? Imho, the answer is no.
(2) Secondly, does Vatican II say non-Catholics like Protestants and Orthodox, who die as such, can be saved? This we'll leave for later.

First, CCC 161, it seems, says that nobody can be saved without belief in Jesus, conformably to the dogmatic Creed of St. Athanasius.

….What does CCC 846-848 say? It is ambiguous.....

…. Thoughts on whether Vatican II and the CCC deny EENS?
Rat poison is 99% nutritious food.

Dogmas are the final word, if they are not clear and needed to be clarified, they would be useless and would not be called dogmas.  "It seems", "it is ambiguous", asking for "thoughts" of anyone, says everything. It says it is rat poison, seek your knowledge elsewhere, it is written by blind guides for the blind.

The treasury agents who specialize in detecting counterfeit bills, when they are being trained are never shown a counterfeit bill, only the real thing. They are immersed in only the real thing, learning every little spec on the bills. This way, when they start to work in the field, they immediately can spot the counterfeit. Learn the real faith and you will instantly recognize a fraud. Do not lose your time studying errors, they are legion, while the truth is only one.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: DecemRationis on April 09, 2019, 08:01:16 AM
This seems to be a studied or intentional ambiguity that invites the belief that people can be saved without faith in Christ. The praxis of the popes and hierarchy of the Conciliar Church promotes the "invitation."


Quote
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

If they really believed that faith in Christ was necessary for salvation, they could have, should have, and I maintain would have said something like, "God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel [teaching], to [faith in Christ]," and perhaps added something which Xavier mentioned about "interiorly before death" or something like that.

Another instance of studied ambiguity. It appears to me just another cloak to shield the light of a false gospel which they proceed to carry about.

DR
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Last Tradhican on April 09, 2019, 08:09:06 AM
Another instance of studied ambiguity. It appears to me just another cloak to shield the light of a false gospel which they proceed to carry about. 
That is all VatII is about.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on April 09, 2019, 09:03:19 AM
(1) Firstly, does Vatican II and the CCC say non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists etc) can be saved? Imho, the answer is no.

Well, +Lefebvre and +Fellay have both said that they can.  So V2 is more strict on EENS than the leaders of your Society?
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on April 09, 2019, 09:04:06 AM
So this guy is one step shy of poche as an apologist for all things Vatican II and Pope Francis.

He's clearly a formal schismatic, since he has absolutely no problem with anything in Vatican II.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: XavierSem on April 09, 2019, 09:52:33 AM
Sigh. I forgive you for your boorishness and your taunts. I am a Traditional Roman Catholic, and by the Grace of God, I will die rather renounce the Faith, Unity, or the Church, and die a Traditional Roman Catholic, always Traditional, always Roman and always Catholic.

I advise you, in charity, to think better of your errors that tell you the Entire Hierarchy is "doubtful" (a total absurdity no theologian has ever held or taught), recant the mortal sin of schism and of 61 year svism, confess it in the confessional, and re-enter the Church. 

The OP question is about what the CCC says on EENS. Nothing else and nothing more. If you have a case to make, you would make it.

What you said about Bishop Fellay is also totally incorrect. You read what you want to, and ignore the rest. Bp. Fellay has said many times no one is saved without going through Our Lord, you can email H.E. and clarify this. You take one sentence of His Excellency that you read from the Dimond heretics and schismatics, and you misinterpret that: Bp. Fellay does not believe in salvation without Christ. 

DecemRationis, yes, I agree with you: the ambiguity is problematic. It seems to me the best way to solve the crisis this has caused would be for the Pope to issue an ex cathedra proclamation re-affirming, basically, the Athanasian Creed, "whoever wishes to be saved needs before all else to hold the Catholic Faith. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity". 

Oops, there could be neither inter faith abominations, nor even really much of false ecumenism after that. The Jews, Muslims and pagans would themselves withdraw if such a clear dogmatic declaration on the necessity of the Catholic Faith in the Trinity was proclaimed.

Quote from: Last Tradhican
The treasury agents who specialize in detecting counterfeit bills, when they are being trained are never shown a counterfeit bill, only the real thing. They are immersed in only the real thing, learning every little spec on the bills. This way, when they start to work in the field, they immediately can spot the counterfeit. Learn the real faith and you will instantly recognize a fraud. Do not lose your time studying errors, they are legion, while the truth is only one.

This is good, true advice, and I appreciate it. Thanks. And I agree. I don't learn my Faith from modern sources, the Catechism of Trent, approved by Pope St. Pius V, is highly recommended by the Church to all Priests and Faithful. One can learn one's Faith from there. Papal Encyclicals, the Teaching of Theologians etc come next. Bp. Fellay recently said all these things related to the Council, according to many leading Cardinals and Bishops, are still "open questions". That means in these modern statements, nothing is settled definitively.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on April 09, 2019, 10:07:04 AM
I have asked you repeatedly to explain what your reasons of conscience are which justify your remaining outside of full communion with the Church, i.e. justify your being with the SSPX rather than FSSP.  You have none.  Consequently, you are a schismatic.  You really don't find anything wrong with Vatican II or the New Mass, so you are not even a Traditional Catholic.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on April 09, 2019, 10:08:17 AM
I am a Traditional Roman Catholic, 

You are nothing of the sort.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on April 09, 2019, 10:11:54 AM
I advise you, in charity, to think better of your errors that tell you the Entire Hierarchy is "doubtful" (a total absurdity no theologian has ever held or taught), recant the mortal sin of schism and of 61 year svism, confess it in the confessional, and re-enter the Church.

XavierFem, I advise you to stop slandering me with false positions.  I have never said that the "Entire Hierarchy" is doubtful; it's the legitimacy of the V2 Papal Claimants that is in doubt.

You're the one who needs to confess your schism, buddy.  You find no fault with V2 or the New Mass and yet you refuse to be in full communion with the V2 hierarchy.  That is the very definition of schism.

I refuse submission to the V2 Papal Claimants because I hold them to be in doubt.  Canon Lawyers teach that those who do so are not guilty of schism.

If I am wrong, then I am wrong materially.  You on the other hand are wrong formally, i.e., you're the one in schism.  You need to scurry over to the FSSP before you lose your soul.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on April 09, 2019, 10:19:23 AM
What you said about Bishop Fellay is also totally incorrect. You read what you want to, and ignore the rest. Bp. Fellay has said many times no one is saved without going through Our Lord, you can email H.E. and clarify this. You take one sentence of His Excellency that you read from the Dimond heretics and schismatics, and you misinterpret that: Bp. Fellay does not believe in salvation without Christ.

You're just another Modernist who does nothing but speak from both sides of your mouth.  +Fellay clearly teaches that infidels can be saved, and so did +Lefebvre for that matter.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on April 09, 2019, 10:23:16 AM
(1) Firstly, does Vatican II and the CCC say non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists etc) can be saved? Imho, the answer is no.

+Fellay explicitly stated that a "Hindu in Tibet without any knowledge of the Catholic Chruch" can be saved.  So, your claim is that V2 was more Traditional than +Fellay.

You didn't formulate the question is "Did V2 say non-Christians can be saved without Christ?"
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Your Friend Colin on April 09, 2019, 10:25:48 AM
First, CCC 161, it seems, says that nobody can be saved without belief in Jesus, conformably to the dogmatic Creed of St. Athanasius.

John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
John 14:15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments."
Luke 10:27 "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with all thy strength and with all thy mind..."
Clearly we see the greatest Commandment is to love God. In order to fulfill this commandment, we must obey God. 
Non-Catholics do not obey Christ.
The Athanasian Creed goes much further than just saying belief in Jesus is necessary.
"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."

WHOLE AND UNDEFILED!

My friend sent me a link to read because we were talking about this. I started to read CCC 800ish and when I got to the part about EENS, I was repulsed. They watered it down so heavily it was nauseating to read. That book is a load of Conciliar garbage.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on April 09, 2019, 10:33:43 AM
We know that it's +Fellay's out, relying on the same logic as +Lefebvre, to say that salvation cannot happen WITHOUT Christ ... but it entails a dishonest reformulation of the Church's dogma.  EENS means that there is not salvation OUTSIDE the Church, not no salvation WITHOUT the Church.  They reduce Christ to a mere instrumental cause of salvation, and theirs is none other than the Rahnerian doctrine of the "Anonymous" Catholic.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: XavierSem on April 09, 2019, 11:13:11 AM
Ladislaus is a misinformed slanderer who deserves to be on permanent ignore. Go troll somewhere else. He's not interested in a conversation, but only in trolling and flaming.

Bishop Fellay: "And quite recently you have a document published by Cardinal Koch on relations with the Jews (Document of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, December 10, 2015). It is a terrible document, completely heretical, which claims that the Jews can be saved without coming through Our Lord (par. 36). Exactly the opposite of what Sacred Scripture teaches us, along with the first pope himself, Saint Peter, who says this to the Jews:
“There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). In other words, there is no other means of being saved except through Our Lord. And here Cardinal Koch thinks that you can make a statement saying the contrary. But, he tells us in black and white (in the Preface): “This is not doctrinal teaching.” But then what game are they playing? They teach without teaching. This causes confusion everywhere. It is a new attitude"
These are not the words of a man who believes people can be saved without explicit knowledge of Christ.
Your Friend Colin, I agree, the entire Catholic Faith must be kept whole and undefiled. Personally, I don't believe even Protestants can be saved as Protestants; only if, by the Grace of God, they repent of their errors and heresies against the Catholic Faith, and become Catholic before death. The Creed and the EENS definitions always reiterate the necessity of the whole Catholic Faith after defining each dogma.

Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 09, 2019, 11:25:02 AM
Quote
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

The catechism is not infallible, none of them.  The above is the biggest problem with the catechism - it falsely proposes a theological "what if" scenario as actual doctrine, when the above scenario not required to be believed, has never been formally taught by any council (except the fallible V2) and it is confusing as hell...which is doctrinal and which is where both Scripture and Councils say that unbaptized persons go if they die.
.
The idea that a person goes through life without knowing the Christ or the Gospel AND it is not their fault is a condemned error.  Firstly, because it is Scriptural in the Gospel of St John that Christ, the Word, "enlightens EVERY man who comes into the world".  Secondly, it is Scriptural that God "wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth."  Thirdly, Christ created the Church to "go and preach the Gospel to all nations".
.
To assert that a person lived his entire life and does not know about God is to deny God's Divine Providence.  If they know about God, then God will enlighten them about the Church, if they follow the natural law.  If they are of bad will, then they will not be given graces to know about spiritual things, because God does not "cast pearls before swine".  If they are ignorant of the Church, then it is their fault, because ignorance is a punishment for sin. 
.
To deny that a "good and sincere" person lived their whole life without hearing of the Gospel and the Church, is to deny that God gives all men a chance at salvation.  It is to deny Scripture.  It is utter heresy and modernism.  Anathema!
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on April 09, 2019, 11:41:16 AM
Ladislaus is a misinformed slanderer who deserves to be on permanent ignore.

+Fellay's "Hindu in Tibet" speech was printed in The Angelus.  Now you can go ahead and try applying a hermeneutic of continuity if you'd like, but my reporting of +Fellay's assegation that a Hindi in Tibet can be saved is no slander.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on April 09, 2019, 11:48:02 AM
Ladislaus is a misinformed slanderer who deserves to be on permanent ignore. Go troll somewhere else. He's not interested in a conversation, but only in trolling and flaming.

Bishop Fellay: "In other words, there is no other means of being saved except through Our Lord."

That's their usual out, the instrumental causality phrase.  This allows anyone at all to be saved, regardless of any subjective requirements, provided objectively the instrumental causality of Our Lord is there.  It's completely disingenuous.  And I'll get back to this later.  They use it to pretend that they uphold EENS when they actually do not.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Pax Vobis on April 09, 2019, 12:34:40 PM
Quote
Bishop Fellay: "In other words, there is no other means of being saved except through Our Lord."

Right, this is only half the answer.  An incomplete thought on salvation.  We are saved through Our Lord, as Scripture says.  But Christ also said that "Not all those who say to Me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven.  But he who does the will of My father..."

And what is the Father's will for all of us?  To enter the Church, to submit to the authority of the Pope and to honor Our Lady, his most holy daughter.  By doing this, we glorify the Father's Son, who is Christ.  No other religion "does the will of the Father", therefore they cannot be saved.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: DecemRationis on April 09, 2019, 02:17:57 PM
That's their usual out, the instrumental causality phrase.  This allows anyone at all to be saved, regardless of any subjective requirements, provided objectively the instrumental causality of Our Lord is there.  It's completely disingenuous.  And I'll get back to this later.  They use it to pretend that they uphold EENS when they actually do not.

What's odious about this is it destroys the unity and synergism of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost working together to save all of the elect, and effectively takes the Son out of the work of salvation - and denies it does so by the theological lip service of the Son as the "instrumental causality." 

The Father gives His to the Son, the Son saves them by His Holy Passion, death and resurrection, and the Holy Ghost applies the merits of Christ through faith and the sacraments, utilizing the Church as the agency. When faith is in Christ, explicitly, the Son's role in salvation is present personally and individually in the very act of believing of those who are saved. Not to get sidetracked here, but a proper understanding of election and predestination shows the role of the Father in all of this: the choosing of the elect and the giving them to Christ - whom Christ keeps in His bosom and redeems by His Precious Blood, which is then applied by the Holy Ghost to the elect, like the blood of the lamb on the doorposts in the Passover. 

The believing Jew and Muslim, if saved, is saved by only 2 of the 3 persons of the Trinity potentially at work: faith in God the Father, and the Spirit at work in contrition and repentance. In light of that, Christ is brought in by the liberal theologians as the "instrumental cause" in the background as it were, sort of a deus ex machina to keep salvation as the work of all 3 persons of the Trinity, when Christ's "not on the stage" (in the consciousness of the repentant believer) when justification is taking place.

Yes, "completely disengenuous" and a makeshift attempt to preserve Christ, the Son, in salvation, in a world where saying makes it so - a world where the correspondence between truth (represented in words) and reality is gone. 
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on April 09, 2019, 02:33:04 PM
We know that it's +Fellay's out, relying on the same logic as +Lefebvre, to say that salvation cannot happen WITHOUT Christ ... but it entails a dishonest reformulation of the Church's dogma.  EENS means that there is not salvation OUTSIDE the Church, not no salvation WITHOUT the Church.  They reduce Christ to a mere instrumental cause of salvation, and theirs is none other than the Rahnerian doctrine of the "Anonymous" Catholic.
Why is this "dishonest?"  Note that this is a separate question than whether or why it is wrong.

Do you believe Lefebvre was a traditional Catholic? 
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Last Tradhican on April 09, 2019, 03:05:36 PM
Ladislaus is a misinformed slanderer who deserves to be on permanent ignore. Go troll somewhere else. He's not interested in a conversation, but only in trolling and flaming.
No, Ladislaus just knows things you have not even heard of yet, that's all.


From the book "Against the Heresies", by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”


2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”

Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
__________________________________________

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)
---------------------------------------------------------
So much for desire to be baptized, or desire to be a Catholic, or a catechumen, or a martyr! (Last Tradhican)
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Last Tradhican on April 09, 2019, 03:11:40 PM
This is the way a Catholic would speak on the subject:

St. Francis Xavier:
Letter from Japan, to the Society of Jesus in Europe, 1552

One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears. So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them wonderfully; they almost pine away with sorrow. But there is this good thing about their trouble---it makes one hope that they will all be the more laborious for their own salvation, lest they like their forefathers, should be condemned to everlasting punishment. They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. We gave them a satisfactory answer, but they did not cease to grieve over the misfortune of their relatives; and I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1552xavier4.html
From: Henry James Coleridge, ed., The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier, 2d Ed., 2 Vols., (London: Burns & Oates, 1890), Vol. II, pp. 331-350; reprinted in William H. McNeil and Mitsuko Iriye, eds., Modern Asia and Africa, Readings in World History Vol. 9, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 20-30.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: XavierSem on April 10, 2019, 02:22:52 AM
First, let's hear the true doctrine on the necessity of the Catholic Faith stated by Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguouri, "“Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.” (The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11)" https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/st-alphonsus-liguori-on-st-thomas-on-the-necessity-of-explicit-faith-in-the-trinity-and-the-redeemer/ (https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/st-alphonsus-liguori-on-st-thomas-on-the-necessity-of-explicit-faith-in-the-trinity-and-the-redeemer/)

The Creed of St. Athanasius says, Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat. [He therefore who will be saved, let him think thus on the Trinity] from which it clearly follows, that explicit Catholic faith in the Holy Trinity is a necessary means of salvation. God can supply this through extraordinary means, such as sending an Angel to a pagan to teach him the Catholic Faith, that he may be saved.

Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?
A. Their inculpable ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.

From: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/familiar.htm (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/familiar.htm) approved by a Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in the 19th century. See: "Adapted for the Family and More Advanced Students in Catholic Schools and Colleges.
with the Approbation of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith" with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur from the Church.

Second, onto Bishop Fellay. Last Tradhican, if you ask His Excellency Bishop +Fellay (or asked His Grace Archbishop Marcel +Lefebvre), they would probably tell you, "I believe as St. Augustine/St. Thomas/St. Alphonsus and the Church believes and teaches". There has been some confusion on the issue because some questions, even pre-Vatican II, were not definitively closed by the Magisterium. More recently, the Magisterium has declared St. Augustine's teaching (that a justified catechumen will also receive Water Baptism before death) adopted by St. Benedict's Centre to be an acceptable theological position. I agree with St. Augustine and the SBC on this one.

Let's look at Bishop Fellay's statement above, H.E. says (1) it is heretical to say Jews can be saved without coming through Our Lord, (2) refers to a theological document (which Church authorities have clarified is non-Magisterial, but theological speculation) that claims Jews can be saved by implicit faith in Christ as expressly heretical. That is why I am confident Bishop Fellay does not believe in implicit faith, but admits the requirement for explicit faith in Christ for salvation, even for the hypothetical Hindu in Tibet, though it is not clear. If someone can ask Bishop Fellay for clarification, either by mail, or by attending H.E.'s next conference and askign personally, that would be helpful for all of us. If Bishop Fellay made a mistake, H.E. surely did so in good faith, but I'm inclined to doubt H.E. made one.

This is the statement of the modern liberal theologians. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html) Imho, paras 17 and 36 are the most problematic: "While affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in Christ, the Church does not question the continued love of God for the chosen people of Israel." (p.17). Note that Bishop Fellay outright called this heretical, so it's clear H.E. doesn't agree with this speculation.

Third, the Magisterium's own position. Here, we're not asking what the Magisterium has declared acceptable (we know SBC's theological position has been accepted as such by Rome), but whether the Church Herself has expressly pronounced on the question in a definitive and infallible way in recent times. In Dominus Iesus (Lord Jesus), released in 2000 under Pope John Paul II and the future Pope Benedict XVI, the Magisterium stated, "The obedience of faith implies acceptance of the truth of Christ's revelation, guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself:17 “Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed”.18 Faith, therefore, as “a gift of God” and as “a supernatural virtue infused by him”,19 involves a dual adherence: to God who reveals and to the truth which he reveals, out of the trust which one has in him who speaks. Thus, “we must believe in no one but God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”.20

For this reason, the distinction between theological faith and belief  in the other religions, must be firmly held. If faith is the acceptance in grace of revealed truth, which “makes it possible to penetrate the mystery in a way that allows us to understand it coherently”,21 then belief, in the other religions, is that sum of experience and thought that constitutes the human treasury of wisdom and religious aspiration, which man in his search for truth has conceived and acted upon in his relationship to God and the Absolute.22

This distinction is not always borne in mind in current theological reflection. Thus, theological faith (the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions, which is religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself. This is one of the reasons why the differences between Christianity and the other religions tend to be reduced at times to the point of disappearance."

So, Rome Herself, in clearer moments, has said this is an erroneous way of thinking, and thus I see no need to break from Rome at all. But yes, I agree, that this is a serious crisis that needs to be fixed. Do you have a solution, Last Tradhican? I think a new ex cathedra definition would be the best, and would help millions know the Truth, that there is no salvation without the explicit knowledge of Christ.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Last Tradhican on April 10, 2019, 07:35:10 AM
Again, I do not think you believe what you write, for if you did, you would not be coming here to create threads about these subjects. Do yourself a favor and go get a life or a wife, and take up the study of truth, rather than following personalities and groups.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on April 10, 2019, 09:07:13 AM
+Fellay is a Pelagian.  He declares that this Hindu can be put into a state of grace and saved merely by conformity with the natural law.

XavierSem, when Fellay was talking about the Jews, he was referring to instrumental causality (through or by means of Christ) ... without the necessity for anything other than the "invisible link" he theorizes about in his Hindu discourse.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: XavierSem on April 10, 2019, 09:25:09 AM
Quote
+Fellay is a Pelagian.

A totally shameless slander of a Traditional Catholic Bishop. May God forgive you for that, and may you think better of it one day. This is why I'm severe on people like you, because your bitterness and your rebellion always leads to bad fruits like this.

The SSPX is so merciful to individual sedes who have scruples of conscience, making every allowance for their misunderstanding, even though it does not, rightly, allow Svism to be publicly professed or ever taught to the Faithful. Yet, you can never repay goodness and kindness like that in the same coin, people like you only understand the language of severity and harshness. Not only Archbishop Lefebvre, but even Bishop Fellay have said, ok, if you privately have misunderstandings, we won't expel you, but you're not supposed to teach it to anyone. Fine? But have Sv's done the same? No, they've stabbed H.E. in the back, calling him all sorts of foul names falsely like you. You will be judged with the same measure you judge. When it's you, you want everyone to make allowance for your good faith and your "material schism", as you call it, if you're mistaken. But you won't apply that to others. Instead of clarifying or respectfully asking H.E. what HE believes before slandering and calumniating as you did above. May God have Mercy on you.

I would much rather focus on edifying things rather than these controversies, but you make it necessary, because some of you are working to destroy and divide the Society. The SSPX is on the right path and is blessed by God. You'll see in the end.

Every Traditional Catholic is welcome to work together for Catholic Restoration. But you don't want to do that. You want to call Bishop Fellay names like Judas and Pelagian. May God forgive you for those grave wrongs.

If Bishop Fellay made a mistake, then it was in good faith. But since he called salvation by implicit faith heretical, H.E. probably did not.

The future of the Church in the next 20-30 years will depend on getting things like this right. I don't want to fight. I want peace and unity within Catholic Tradition, as we work for Catholic Restoration in Rome and the wider Church. But some of you make it impossible.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: DecemRationis on April 10, 2019, 09:53:54 AM
Xavier,


Quote
Bishop Fellay: "And quite recently you have a document published by Cardinal Koch on relations with the Jews (Document of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, December 10, 2015). It is a terrible document, completely heretical, which claims that the Jews can be saved without coming through Our Lord (par. 36). Exactly the opposite of what Sacred Scripture teaches us, along with the first pope himself, Saint Peter, who says this to the Jews:
“There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). In other words, there is no other means of being saved except through Our Lord. And here Cardinal Koch thinks that you can make a statement saying the contrary. But, he tells us in black and white (in the Preface): “This is not doctrinal teaching.” But then what game are they playing? They teach without teaching. This causes confusion everywhere. It is a new attitude"

Talk about playing games! It's the same game all these guys play that Bishop Fellay is playing. Notice the objection of the bishop to the "claims that the Jews can be saved without coming through Our Lord." It's the "instrumental causality" thing noted by Ladislaus. All he (Bishop Fellay) needs to say is "there is no salvation without personal belief in Christ," and the whole issue is settled.

This is just more ambiguity, albeit tightened up a bit so that it looks stricter than V2 speak.

So many of these guys, both R & R and Sede, such as Bishop Sanborn, could simply put this matter to rest by asserting the simple necessity for an act of explicit faith in Christ for all who are to be saved. It never comes.

One time I submitted a question to Father Jenkins through the youtube channel What Catholics Believe seeking clarification on the issue of explicit faith in Christ after listening to one of his presentations - and I didn't received a response.

As I said above, if these guys really believed in the necessity of explicit faith in Christ they could easily settle the issue with a simple direct statement. The statement never comes, which creates an adverse inference in my view in light of the ready means of clarification that doesn't come.

DR

Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: DecemRationis on April 10, 2019, 10:00:05 AM
I think it's their holding to "implicit desire" for baptism that clouds their thinking. It seems always that where there's recognition of an implicit desire for baptism there's recognition of implicit faith in Christ. Doesn't have to be (e.g., St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus), but seems to always be the case since the late 19th century.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on April 10, 2019, 10:15:48 AM
A totally shameless slander of a Traditional Catholic Bishop.

Oh, get lost, you little sanctimonious self-righteous twit.  

This is simply what +Fellay says: that people can be put into the state of grace by following the natural law ... without any mention of supernatural faith.  That is in fact textbook Pelagianism.

+Fellay:
Quote
Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on April 10, 2019, 10:20:40 AM
The SSPX is so merciful to individual sedes who have scruples of conscience, making every allowance for their misunderstanding, even though it does not, rightly, allow Svism to be publicly professed or ever taught to the Faithful.

OK, so now you're equating the teaching that explicit supernatural faith in Christ is necessary for salvation with "SVism".  I guess that makes the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and even Msgr. Fenton out to be sedevacantists.   :facepalm:  This position is not even "Feeneyism", much less "SVism".  It's the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on April 10, 2019, 08:08:33 PM
+Fellay is a Pelagian.  He declares that this Hindu can be put into a state of grace and saved merely by conformity with the natural law.

XavierSem, when Fellay was talking about the Jews, he was referring to instrumental causality (through or by means of Christ) ... without the necessity for anything other than the "invisible link" he theorizes about in his Hindu discourse.
Sincere question.  Is Bishop Fellay's view here any different than Archbishop Lefebvre's, and if so in what way?

(Whether they were both right or both wrong being a separate question) 
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: XavierSem on April 11, 2019, 01:48:06 AM
You are blind, deaf and dumb, and you read texts however you want, even when the person who said them is still alive, Ladislaus.

St. Alphonsus says this, "Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”  - this is not Pelagianism, this is God working to give grace to those who observe the law of nature, to bring souls to the Faith and save their soul.

You are a Calvinist and a Jansenist if you believe in total depravity and that all the actions of infidels are sins. St. Alphonsus is distinguishing, and Bp. Fellay seems to be doing the same, between a pagan who strives with the aid of grace to live uprightly, and another who does not. The first can be saved, not because natural law in itself is salvific, but because good natural actions can prepare and dispose the way for supernatural grace.

Pope Bl. Pius IX had said, "7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." This was interpreted wrongly by people on both the left and the right. 

Some, like the blind person here, claimed the Holy Father was a "Pelagian", from their own false understanding, and became schismatics and heretics in doing so. Others falsely claimed this meant non-Catholics could be saved as non-Catholics, when the very error the Pope is controverting here is the error that it is possible to arrive at salvation though living apart from the True Faith and from Catholic Unity. They were wrong too. So why did the Pope mention natural law? Is it salvific? No, but beause as grace builds on nature, and God often prepares the way to supernatural grace by good natural actions (as He did for Cornelius, as St. Peter and St. Thomas say), therefore the Holy Father mentions it. That's all. The Catechism published about 10 years after this Encyclical, with the approval of the Roman Congregation for Propagating the Faith, explains it clearly.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Last Tradhican on April 11, 2019, 06:17:45 AM
Why doesn't the OP just say that he believes that anyone can be saved, that one does not need to be a baptized Catholic, or believe in Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity, nor love the Blessed Mother?

The reason is that he does not fully believe it himself, so he needs to further convince himself and others so he can feel good about his loss of the faith. Belief in salvation without at least explicit belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity is an inclined plain to the abyss of total unbelief.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: DecemRationis on April 11, 2019, 08:02:07 AM
You are blind, deaf and dumb, and you read texts however you want, even when the person who said them is still alive, Ladislaus.

St. Alphonsus says this, "Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”  - this is not Pelagianism, this is God working to give grace to those who observe the law of nature, to bring souls to the Faith and save their soul.

You are a Calvinist and a Jansenist if you believe in total depravity and that all the actions of infidels are sins. St. Alphonsus is distinguishing, and Bp. Fellay seems to be doing the same, between a pagan who strives with the aid of grace to live uprightly, and another who does not. The first can be saved, not because natural law in itself is salvific, but because good natural actions can prepare and dispose the way for supernatural grace.

Pope Bl. Pius IX had said, "7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." This was interpreted wrongly by people on both the left and the right.

Some, like the blind person here, claimed the Holy Father was a "Pelagian", from their own false understanding, and became schismatics and heretics in doing so. Others falsely claimed this meant non-Catholics could be saved as non-Catholics, when the very error the Pope is controverting here is the error that it is possible to arrive at salvation though living apart from the True Faith and from Catholic Unity. They were wrong too. So why did the Pope mention natural law? Is it salvific? No, but beause as grace builds on nature, and God often prepares the way to supernatural grace by good natural actions (as He did for Cornelius, as St. Peter and St. Thomas say), therefore the Holy Father mentions it. That's all. The Catechism published about 10 years after this Encyclical, with the approval of the Roman Congregation for Propagating the Faith, explains it clearly.

Xavier,

Take out the first sentence, and this is an excellent post. 

DR
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: DecemRationis on April 11, 2019, 08:09:03 AM
You are blind, deaf and dumb, and you read texts however you want, even when the person who said them is still alive, Ladislaus.

St. Alphonsus says this, "Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.”  - this is not Pelagianism, this is God working to give grace to those who observe the law of nature, to bring souls to the Faith and save their soul.

You are a Calvinist and a Jansenist if you believe in total depravity and that all the actions of infidels are sins. St. Alphonsus is distinguishing, and Bp. Fellay seems to be doing the same, between a pagan who strives with the aid of grace to live uprightly, and another who does not. The first can be saved, not because natural law in itself is salvific, but because good natural actions can prepare and dispose the way for supernatural grace.

Pope Bl. Pius IX had said, "7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." This was interpreted wrongly by people on both the left and the right.

Some, like the blind person here, claimed the Holy Father was a "Pelagian", from their own false understanding, and became schismatics and heretics in doing so. Others falsely claimed this meant non-Catholics could be saved as non-Catholics, when the very error the Pope is controverting here is the error that it is possible to arrive at salvation though living apart from the True Faith and from Catholic Unity. They were wrong too. So why did the Pope mention natural law? Is it salvific? No, but beause as grace builds on nature, and God often prepares the way to supernatural grace by good natural actions (as He did for Cornelius, as St. Peter and St. Thomas say), therefore the Holy Father mentions it. That's all. The Catechism published about 10 years after this Encyclical, with the approval of the Roman Congregation for Propagating the Faith, explains it clearly.
While I think it a very well thought out post, and helpful, let me repeat: If Bishop Fellay and co. really see this as mere preparation to supernatural faith, why on earth - I beg that at least one of them do so ( Bishops Fellay, Williamson, Sanborn, Fathers Cekada, Jenkins . . .) - do they not clearly and unambiguously assert, in conjunction with St. Thomas, that this pagan or whatever "will be brought to the necessary faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ before their soul exits this earth," or words to that effect.  

Until that statement is heard, I remain . . . dubious. Nay, more than dubious. 

DR
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 06, 2019, 03:14:22 PM
OK, so now you're equating the teaching that explicit supernatural faith in Christ is necessary for salvation with "SVism".  I guess that makes the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and even Msgr. Fenton out to be sedevacantists.   :facepalm:  This position is not even "Feeneyism", much less "SVism".  It's the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers.
"necessary" is a tricky word, but I know what you mean.  You mean that there isn't a single case where someone above the age of reason is saved without explicit supernatural faith in Christ.

I'm pretty sure Justin Martyr argued that Socrates was saved, but you have the "loophole" there that he was Old Covenant.

I've heard that a small number of church fathers were universalists but I don't have quotes on hand and maybe that's a misrepresentation
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on August 06, 2019, 04:24:47 PM
"necessary" is a tricky word, but I know what you mean.  You mean that there isn't a single case where someone above the age of reason is saved without explicit supernatural faith in Christ.

No, I and St. Thomas (et al.) hold that no one CAN be saved without explicit knowledge of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.  As St. Pius X said, there has to be a material minimum to faith.  There has to be an OBJECT of faith.  Until about the year 1600, when a few Jesuits began dabbling and innovating, all Catholics, following the dogmatic Athanasian creed, held this minimum to be the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.  And the rest could be held implicitly by virtue of the formal of faith (in other words, due to the intention to accept whatever the Church teaches).  But that intention to accept the teaching of the Church (the formal motive) must also have SOME matter.  Form cannot exist here independent of matter.  That's what the "minimum" refers to.  You can say the words of consecration (supply the form), but if you have no bread, transubstantiation cannot take place (since there is no matter).  So when I (and St. Thomas) say "necessary", we do not mean that this just so happens to be the case.

Now, around the year 1600, the Jesuits started innovating and speculated that the mere believe in the existence of God along with the believe that He rewards the good and punishes the wicked, could suffice for this minimum.  Even during the just-pre-Vatican II days, the majority theological opinion was that belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were required.  Without that, the formal motive of faith does not have an adequate object.

Now Vatican I pretty much ended the controversy with a much-overlooked teaching.  In defining supernatural faith, Vatican I taught that supernatural faith must have as its object something that can ONLY be known through revelation (and cannot be deduced by reason).  But the existence of God and the fact that He rewards and punishes justly can in fact be deduced by natural reason.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on August 06, 2019, 04:36:11 PM
There was actually ZERO theology behind the Jesuit innovation and speculation ... in support of what I call Rewarder God theory for short.  They simply had an emotional reaction against the possibility that the pagan natives in the New World (and the Jesuits were heavily evolved in missionary activity) would have been lost.

Father Cekada at one point admitted that he doesn't like the stricter view of EENS because he just couldn't accept that so many millions were lost.

BoD speculation has ALWAYS derived from emotion rather than reason.  But we as Catholics do not do theology from emotion.  We take what God has revealed and then draw conclusions therefrom.  In other words, no one has ever derived BoD necessarily from any revealed truth by way of syllogism.

St. Augustine was practically the originator of the concept when, in his early days, he speculated that a catechumen who died before Baptism could be saved.  After he had matured in the faith, he strongly rejected the notion as Pelagian ... and some of the strongest explicit rejections of BoD in existence actually come from St. Augustine.  But the medieval thinkers did not have access to the works in which he rejected BoD.  So the damage was done.  In the pre-scholastic era, the theologians Abelard and Hugh of St. Victor debated the subject, with Hugh being for BoD and Abelard against.  They referred the matter to St. Bernard, who responded weekly with "I'd rather be wrong with Augustine than right on my own." (out of humility and devotion to St. Augustine).  At that time, devotion to St. Augustine was so strong that the Church needed to condemn the proposition that it was OK to prefer St. Augustine to the actual teaching of the Church.  In any case, after St. Bernard, Peter Lombard adopted the opinion.  From Peter Lombard, so did St. Thomas Aquinas, and after Aquinas, due to his authority, it went viral.  But all the while these men were unaware that Augustine had rejected the opinion.  Now, even in proposing it, St. Augustine admitted that he was merely speculating, stating that he had gone back and forth on the matter in his mind but at the time ended up in favor of BoD.  No sense whatsoever that this was some authoritative teaching of Apostolic origin, but rather mere speculation ... with no proof whatsoever, just a categorical assertion.  So the case for BoD is incredibly weak, without any proof that it was taught by the Apostles and held universally by the Church Fathers, and no definitive argument where the truth derived implicitly from other revealed truth and therefore was even definable as Church dogma.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 06, 2019, 04:40:42 PM
Explicit Faith is required for salvation...


In 1703 during the reign of Pope Clement XI when the missionary effort to the Amerindians was at its height, the Holy Office responded to an inquiry from the Bishop of Quebec:

Question. Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and punishing, according to this remark of the Apostle: “He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder” (Heb. 11:16), from which it is to be inferred that a barbarian adult in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized even though he does not explicitly believe in Jesus Christ.

Response. A missionary should not baptize one who does not explicitly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized” (Denz. 2380).

To an additional inquiry the Holy Office responded, that even an adult Indian at the point of death, must make an act of faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation before he could be baptized. (Denz. 2381)
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on August 06, 2019, 04:46:00 PM
On one thread, I compiled a long list of Patristic quotes.  They are absolutely unanimous that no one can be saved without explicit knowledge of Jesus Christ.  When a couple speculated about BoD, it was only for formal catechumens who had the intention to be baptized and otherwise believed all the core articles of faith.  Not a single Church Father ever expressed a belief that the "Hindu in Tibet" could be saved.

Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 06, 2019, 05:04:43 PM
St Paul speaks of unbelievers:
And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost,  In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.  (2 Corinth 3-4)

Cornelius à Lapide, the great Scripture scholar, commenting on this passage writes:
“If you, O Paul, manifest, as you say, in truth the word of God, commending it to every conscience, how is it that this your word of God be not manifest to all? Why do not all believe? He answers, that to the good and faithful it is manifest, but to the impious and unfaithful it is hidden and unknown, since they are lost and reprobate.”


St Thomas on the sin of unbelief of the pagans:
“…If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief.

Hence Our Lord said (Jo. 15:22): ‘If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin’; which Augustine expounds (Tract. 89 in Joan.) as ‘referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ.'”
(Summa Theologica , II-II, Q. 10, a. 3)
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 06, 2019, 06:30:48 PM

Quote
“There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). In other words, there is no other means of being saved except through Our Lord. 
This statement is partially true by +Fellay because we only come to Christ through the Church.  Therefore, "outside the Church there is no salvation" is the same thing as saying "outside Christ there is no salvation" because you cannot separate Christ from His Church.  Protestants think they can come to Christ alone, but they are heretically wrong.  The same goes for pagans and ignorant natives - they must be saved by Christ but Christ only saves us through His Bride, the Church.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 06, 2019, 06:52:25 PM

Quote
Father Cekada at one point admitted that he doesn't like the stricter view of EENS because he just couldn't accept that so many millions were lost. (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=51882.msg662198#msg662198)

Just wondering, do you have a source for the Fr. Cekada thing?

I know Justin Martyr thought that Socrates was saved, but that was Old Testament so maybe it "doesn't count".  Augustine thought some Donatists who were born Donatists might not be formal heretics.  I've heard a minority of the Fathers (pre Constnatiniople II) believed everyone would eventually be saved, but I know that view was ultimately condemned, and also that those views might have been taken out of context for the Fathers in question anyways.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 06, 2019, 06:54:50 PM
Quote
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
XavierSem, you have not grasped the cunningly erroneous explanation above, which gives the impression that an invincibly ignorant person can be saved in his invincible ignorance, without converting.  This is the heretical error and the ambiguously grave scandal which V2 proposes.
.
This is the same heretical error which +ABL and +Fellay propose:  That non-catholics can be saved "IN" false religions.  This is categorically wrong.  The MANNER in which they explain it is heresy.  I cannot say what they believe personally, but their explanation is anti-catholic.  Let me explain.
.
As you quote St Alphonsus, who quoted St Thomas, who said:
If anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius.
.
This explanation is quite orthodox, but it does not agree with V2, +ABL or +Fellay.  Because St Thomas is describing where God sends to the ignorant native someone to preach the Faith to him and the native accepts the Faith and converts, as did Cornelius with St Peter.
.
THE IGNORANT NATIVE CANNOT SAVE HIS SOUL UNLESS HE CONVERTS.  Ergo, HE IS NO LONGER A HINDU OR A MUSLIM OR A PAGAN INDIAN - He is now 100% Catholic!  By accepting the Catholic Faith, he necessarily MUST reject his former religion because the 2 are diametrically opposed!
.
So we cannot say that a hindu or muslim can be saved "IN" their false religion or "in spite of" their false religion.  We cannot say that a pagan can be saved "through the dictates of their conscience" and leave the explanation at that.  This is a lie!  We must say that ONLY catholics get to heaven.  If there are ignorant pagans or hindus or muslims or protestants out there of good will, they will NOT be saved "IN" their false religions but only through the Catholic Faith, which requires them to REJECT their false religion before they become a member.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on August 06, 2019, 07:54:54 PM
Just wondering, do you have a source for the Fr. Cekada thing?

I tried finding it for a while but couldn't.  It's been cited here on CathInfo a number of times.  I'll try to dig it up.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 07, 2019, 02:24:56 AM
Just wondering, do you have a source for the Fr. Cekada thing?
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic,  Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death.  It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on August 07, 2019, 09:11:51 AM
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic,  Fall 2003, p. 7: “... I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

Thank you for finding this.

This sentence speaks volumes.  "Refuse to believe".  Not that he's persuaded by theological argument not to believe it, but he "simply refuses to believe" (aka an act of the will) ... to which St. Thomas Aquinas attributes all error and heresy.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 07, 2019, 09:22:50 AM
It’s a scary thought that most all sedevacantists look to Fr Cekada as an expert theologian.  
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 07, 2019, 09:48:04 AM
Thank you for finding this.

This sentence speaks volumes.  "Refuse to believe".  Not that he's persuaded by theological argument not to believe it, but he "simply refuses to believe" (aka an act of the will) ... to which St. Thomas Aquinas attributes all error and heresy.
At least he was honest. I think that is the reason all BODers are so thickheaded, there is scarcely one that limits it to baptism of desire of the catechumen. And the reason why they think that way I believe is:

#1 they think that Hell is an amorphous solid mass of horrific punishments
#2 they think that people are just born into a situation and God has to deal with them then.
#3 they think that clear dogma has to be interpreted by theologians

If I have the time it would be good to start a thread based on this Cekada admittance.  
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 07, 2019, 10:56:52 AM
I don't like Fr. Cekada's argument there.  If its true, its true, and I accept it.  My only issue is I'm not persuaded that the Church actually teaches that, for the reasons I'm already stated.

All that being said, regarding Last Tridachian's points, I knew that there were different levels of punishment in Hell, but i assumed they all (except for Limbo) would be horrific.  And I'm not sure dogmas don't have to be interpreted by theologians, why would we say they don't?
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on August 07, 2019, 10:57:59 AM
At least he was honest. 

Yes he was ... in one of the rare few times I've seen one of the BoDers admit their true motivation.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Stubborn on August 07, 2019, 01:43:12 PM
And I'm not sure dogmas don't have to be interpreted by theologians, why would we say they don't?
Dogmas always mean what they say - and always maintain that same meaning forever, as the dogma as decreed at V1 states:

Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

Per V1, no one is even allowed to interpret dogma, the Church saw to it that there is no need for it and in fact, it would seem that one disagrees with both it, and the Church's infallibility when they feel the need to interpret it.

Dogmas are not new ideas, dogmas are basically doctrines defined ex cathedra and have been part of tradition since the time of the Apostles. They have either been debated amongst theologians, sometimes for many centuries, then at some point after all debating has exhausted itself, finally the pope closes the matter ex cathedra (this is what  many wish would happen regarding a BOD), or they are doctrines that have always been believed like Our Lady's Assumption into heaven, that finally are defined ex cathedra for a clearer understanding among all the faithful.


When it comes to the EENS dogma, Fr. Wathen states clearly what typically occurs:

"Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying".

Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 07, 2019, 02:00:16 PM
Dogmas always mean what they say - and always maintain that same meaning forever, as the dogma as decreed at V1 states:

Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

Per V1, no one is even allowed to interpret dogma, the Church saw to it that there is no need for it and in fact, it would seem that one disagrees with both it, and the Church's infallibility when they feel the need to interpret it.

Dogmas are not new ideas, dogmas are basically doctrines defined ex cathedra and have been part of tradition since the time of the Apostles. They have either been debated amongst theologians, sometimes for many centuries, then at some point after all debating has exhausted itself, finally the pope closes the matter ex cathedra (this is what  many wish would happen regarding a BOD), or they are doctrines that have always been believed like Our Lady's Assumption into heaven, that finally are defined ex cathedra for a clearer understanding among all the faithful.


When it comes to the EENS dogma, Fr. Wathen states clearly what typically occurs:

"Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying".
I find the constant assumption that those who hold to the possibility of being inside the Church without being a visible member are just being emotional or looking for loopholes a bit irritating.  I assume you'd also accuse Archbishop Lefebvre of the same?  Was he a modernist?

I find, philosophically, the idea that any text whatsoever does not need any interpretation whatsoever to be absurd.  I agree that this concept can be abused by modernists, who want to make texts believe something completely different than what it originally meant, and I think that's what Vatican I was trying to rule out (certainly it still happened, however.)  But the idea that there was no development, whatsoever, between the early church and Vatican I, seems impossible to defend either.

Honestly, I find the witch hunts on both sides kind of irritating.  I find it irritating when the Feeneyites get called extremists, and I find it irritating when Baptism of Desire advocates get called modernists.  I mean, I think we should be discussing these things, but ultimately we agree on  lot more than we don't.  And I still haven't seen anywhere *near* sufficient proof, either something absolutely irrrefutable from the past, or actual Vatican action, that would lead me to believe that either side is definitively heretical.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Stubborn on August 07, 2019, 02:17:19 PM
I find, philosophically, the idea that any text whatsoever does not need any interpretation whatsoever to be absurd.  I agree that this concept can be abused by modernists, who want to make texts believe something completely different than what it originally meant, and I think that's what Vatican I was trying to rule out (certainly it still happened, however.)  But the idea that there was no development, whatsoever, between the early church and Vatican I, seems impossible to defend either.
Dogmas may not be interpreted. Further explanation to better or more easily accept I can see. But interpret that which comes from the mouth of God? No.

When Trent comes right out and says the sacrament of Baptism is not optional and whoever says it is, is anathema, and natural water must be used - what is there to interpret? When the thrice defined dogma (EENS) comes right out and says there is no hope for salvation outside of the Catholic Church - what is there to interpret? I am asking a sincere question.

Remember, we are bound under pain of mortal sin to believe what dogmas say. As such, it is impossible for the Holy Ghost to give us an ambiguous dogma, or one that is not crystal clear forever or that has contradicting meaning. The Dogmas as decreed are clear and in apodictic terms lest the Holy Ghost be responsible for our sin through a misunderstanding of what they say.  
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 07, 2019, 02:38:23 PM
Quote
I find the constant assumption that those who hold to the possibility of being inside the Church without being a visible member are just being emotional or looking for loopholes a bit irritating.
The reason that the benefit of the doubt is not given is because this type of modernist thinking has been around for over 200 years, since the early 1800s.  It was also around before that, when 3 other councils in the history of the Church defined dogmas which condemned such thinking.  This attack against the doctrine of exclusive salvation is a never-ending attack.  V2 brought it up again, and now 95% of catholics are infected with this error, to some degree.

Quote
I assume you'd also accuse Archbishop Lefebvre of the same?  Was he a modernist?
I would say, based on some of his answers, that he was infected with Modernism.  We all are, in some areas of our life.  Pope St Pius X said that Modernism is the "synthesis of all heresies."  It's prideful to think any of us is immune.

Quote
I find, philosophically, the idea that any text whatsoever does not need any interpretation whatsoever to be absurd.
The Church has ruled that, except where She has said that texts of the Bible are symbolic, that Scripture is to be read with a literal interpretation.  When the Church gathers all Cardinals, Bishops and theologians together for a council, in order to condemn errors and teach doctrine, She spends months and years to formulate the doctrinal statements so that they are clear, concise, and simple to understand.  This is Her purpose - to teach simply so that even a child can understand the Faith.  So, yes, doctrines are meant to be read in a literal sense, especially since they come from the Pope, through his power of infallibility, wherein God protects him from error in teaching truth.

Quote
But the idea that there was no development, whatsoever, between the early church and Vatican I, seems impossible to defend either.
It depends what you mean by development.  Modernists want to define development as meaning that doctrine "changes over time" to "suit the needs of man in each age".  This is totally heretical.  The Faith which Christ gave to the Apostles, which they preached to all the nations, which was handed down to the Church Fathers, which has been handed down 2,000 years to us is absolutely, 100% the same - with nothing added, edited or removed.  This is why Tradition and doctrine is said to be believed "everywhere, always and by all."
.
However, we can say that doctrine "improves" in the sense that by prayer, apparitions and enlightenments of Saints, God gives greater understanding, depth and wisdom concerning the Divine Truths which doctrines seek to explain.  This does not mean that doctrine changes; it just means that God gives us more details.  Our simple minds can never fully understand Divine Truths, which is why we will continue to learn for all eternity about God, if we make it to heaven.
.
Quote
Honestly, I find the witch hunts on both sides kind of irritating.  I find it irritating when the Feeneyites get called extremists, and I find it irritating when Baptism of Desire advocates get called modernists.  I mean, I think we should be discussing these things, but ultimately we agree on  lot more than we don't.  And I still haven't seen anywhere *near* sufficient proof, either something absolutely irrrefutable from the past, or actual Vatican action, that would lead me to believe that either side is definitively heretical.
It's important to remember that this debate over baptism of desire/blood is party based on doctrine and partly based on theological speculation.  There is gray area here; the Church has yet to teach on this with 100% clarity.  The contention is over the boundaries of the gray area.
.
Feeneyites/St Thomas-ites would say the gray area is small.  BOD only concerns a small, unique situation.  Most others, due to the liberalism since the 1800s, the anti-St Thomas modernists of the 1900s and the freemasonic V2 of 1960 - say that the gray area affects all non-catholics, since God's mercy is limitless.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 07, 2019, 02:46:39 PM
Quote
Dogmas may not be interpreted. Further explanation to better or more easily accept I can see. But interpret that which comes from the mouth of God? No.

The Bible comes from the mouth of God, right?  2 Tim 3:16-17?  Yet, contra the Protestants, even that needs to be interpreted.  "Further explanation to better or more easily see" is a type of interpretation.

What do you interpret "interpretation" to mean?  We might be talking about different contexts.

Quote
When Trent comes right out and says the sacrament of Baptism is not optional and whoever says it is, is anathema, and natural water must be used - what is there to interpret?
[size={defaultattr}]
Trent here is condemning Protestants, who think baptism is an optional add on to salvation in some way, whether it be Baptists who think its something you do *after* you get saved, or many of the Reformed who say baptism is a covenant sign like circumcision but doesn't actually contribute to your salvation.  I don't think its condemning, or addressing, those who say baptism is *not* optional, that neglect or contempt for it is damnable, and yet believe God saves by baptism of desire those who are *unable* to receive the sacrament despite recognizing its non-optional nature and desiring to receive it. (Note: this logic applies even if BOD is false.)  

I think the key word here is "optional."

[/size]
Quote
When the thrice defined dogma (EENS) comes right out and says there is no hope for salvation outside of the Catholic Church - what is there to interpret? I am asking a sincere question.
[size={defaultattr}]
In terms of what it immediately says, there's nothing up for debate.  There is no hope for salvation outside of the Catholic Church.

The issue of debate, and where interpretation is needed, is when it comes to defining what, *precisely* it means to be "outside."  Augustine (see the first two paragraphs of Letter 43) apparently believed at least some Donatists, despite *appearing* to be outside the Church, might not deserve to be regarded as heretics.  Lefebvre, at least presumably (I'm choosing to interpret him charitably) wouldn't have said you could be saved outside the Church, but rather, would have said that those who, outside the visible bounds of membership, were saved by God's grace despite their religions would, in fact, be inside the Church despite a lack of personal knowledge of it.

And that's ultimately what the debate seems to come down to, whether *visible membership* in the Church is *absolutely* necessary to be inside it.  It seems like not only almost all Novus Ordo theologians, but also the majority of trads, are disputing that.  Based on that, I'd need to see *overwhelming proof* before I start saying that that view is heretical and that all the people who hold to it are, at the least, material heretics.  I haven't seen that kind of evidence.  Florence doesn't say that.  Florence seems to be plausibly able to be interpreted as referring to *formal* heretics and schismatics as being damned, without saying definitively who those people are.  The same seems to be true for the other two definitions of EENS.

I'm not sure why its *obvious* that there's a 1 to 1 correspondence between being inside, and being a formal and visible member, and a lot of other people (even most traditionalists) don't think that's obvious either.


[/size]
Quote
Remember, we are bound under pain of mortal sin to believe what dogmas say. As such, it is impossible for the Holy Ghost to give us an ambiguous dogma, or one that is not crystal clear forever or that has contradicting meaning. The Dogmas as decreed are clear and in apodictic terms lest the Holy Ghost be responsible for our sin through a misunderstanding of what they say.  
Sincere misunderstanding, as far as I can tell ,is not a mortal sin.  A refusal to believe is.  I just don't see how this follows.  

Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Struthio on August 07, 2019, 02:56:06 PM
I would say, based on some of his answers, that he was infected with Modernism.  We all are, in some areas of our life.  Pope St Pius X said that Modernism is the "synthesis of all heresies."  It's prideful to think any of us is immune.

Modernism is not an infection in various areas of our life.

Rather, modernism is a bag full of condemned heresies. Anyone adhering to one or more of the modernist errors described in Pascendi dominici gregis or listed in Lamentabili sane exitu is excommunicated lata sententia.

A latae sententiae penalty is a penalty with sentence already passed.


See St. Pius X.: Praestantia Scripturae, 11/18/1907


Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 07, 2019, 03:02:11 PM
ByzCat,
When you compare St Augustine and the Donatists vs Lefebvre and pagans, you are comparing apples and oranges.  The donatists were many times baptized heretics; pagans are never baptized.  A non-baptized person is absolutely, infallibly not a member of the Church.  A heretic is a former member who has separated himself by error.  The only way for a non-baptized person to become a member is to be baptized, else they are outside of the Church.  On the contrary, a heretic does not need to be re-baptized, so they can regain membership if they reject their errors, which does not need to be done publically, in the case of death.  There is more gray area when it comes to heretics due to the material/formal heresy distinction and also since they've already been baptized.  But the difference between an unbaptized pagan and a baptized heretic is extreme.  Both have different problems and different solutions.  Can't compare them at all.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 07, 2019, 03:08:01 PM
Quote
The reason that the benefit of the doubt is not given is because this type of modernist thinking has been around for over 200 years, since the early 1800s.  It was also around before that, when 3 other councils in the history of the Church defined dogmas which condemned such thinking.  This attack against the doctrine of exclusive salvation is a never-ending attack.  V2 brought it up again, and now 95% of catholics are infected with this error, to some degree.

Quote
I would say, based on some of his answers, that he was infected with Modernism.  We all are, in some areas of our life.  Pope St Pius X said that Modernism is the "synthesis of all heresies."  It's prideful to think any of us is immune.

Quote
The Church has ruled that, except where She has said that texts of the Bible are symbolic, that Scripture is to be read with a literal interpretation.  When the Church gathers all Cardinals, Bishops and theologians together for a council, in order to condemn errors and teach doctrine, She spends months and years to formulate the doctrinal statements so that they are clear, concise, and simple to understand.  This is Her purpose - to teach simply so that even a child can understand the Faith.  So, yes, doctrines are meant to be read in a literal sense, especially since they come from the Pope, through his power of infallibility, wherein God protects him from error in teaching truth.

Quote
It depends what you mean by development.  Modernists want to define development as meaning that doctrine "changes over time" to "suit the needs of man in each age".  This is totally heretical.  The Faith which Christ gave to the Apostles, which they preached to all the nations, which was handed down to the Church Fathers, which has been handed down 2,000 years to us is absolutely, 100% the same - with nothing added, edited or removed.  This is why Tradition and doctrine is said to be believed "everywhere, always and by all."
.
However, we can say that doctrine "improves" in the sense that by prayer, apparitions and enlightenments of Saints, God gives greater understanding, depth and wisdom concerning the Divine Truths which doctrines seek to explain.  This does not mean that doctrine changes; it just means that God gives us more details.  Our simple minds can never fully understand Divine Truths, which is why we will continue to learn for all eternity about God, if we make it to heaven.



I think the gray area is small, but I'm not certain we can precisely pin down its limits.  I definitely think the modern Bishop Barron types, who want to speculate on possibly everyone being saved, are being manifestly foolish.  I think its clear, both from scripture and from the vast majority of Church Tradition, that Judas Iscariot is in Hell and that there are other human beings in Hell.  It seems extremely likely, though perhaps not absolutely certain, that the majority of human beings end up in Hell.  I do think it might be the case that the best a soul that is unbaptized could possibly attain is Limbo, and I *have zero emotional or otherwise objection* if that's ultimately how God set it up.  The reason why I withhold judgment there is mostly because it seems like even most trad theologians do, and its not sufficiently *obvious* to me that they're wrong, to absolutely rule that out.

Of course, Protestants and EOs create a unique problem in the sense that they are in fact baptized, which raises a different question, what level of knowledge a baptized person has to have in order to be a formal as opposed to mere material heretic.  I'm not aware of the Church having ever definitively defined this either, though its possible they have and I'm just not aware of it.  In the case of Protestants and EOs, the issue seems not to be invincible ignorance or baptism of desire (as the case is with "virtuous pagans") but rather Christians (in the sense of having a valid baptism, even if not in any other sense) and at what point said Christians are in fact actually cut off from the Church due to formal heresy.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Stubborn on August 07, 2019, 05:07:50 PM
The Bible comes from the mouth of God, right?  2 Tim 3:16-17?  Yet, contra the Protestants, even that needs to be interpreted.  "Further explanation to better or more easily see" is a type of interpretation.
The Bible itself warns that certain things are hard to understand: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16

The Church infallibly decrees that dogma is to be understood as the Church declared it. "Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding". - V1

Hence, dogma is to be understood as once declared, just as V1 said.



Quote
Trent here is condemning Protestants, who think baptism is an optional add on to salvation in some way, whether it be Baptists who think its something you do *after* you get saved, or many of the Reformed who say baptism is a covenant sign like circumcision but doesn't actually contribute to your salvation.  I don't think its condemning, or addressing, those who say baptism is *not* optional, that neglect or contempt for it is damnable, and yet believe God saves by baptism of desire those who are *unable* to receive the sacrament despite recognizing its non-optional nature and desiring to receive it. (Note: this logic applies even if BOD is false.)  

I think the key word here is "optional."

This is where you are steering off course. Trent is clearly condemning, not only the prots, Trent is condemning the whole idea that one may attain salvation without the sacrament. Trent says "If anyone saith....they are anathema". Be it a Prot, jew, Hindu or Catholic, anyone who says salvation can be attained without the sacrament is anathema. Being that a BOD is not a sacrament, it cannot save anyone, which is why per Trent and Our Lord and the Apostles and etc., the sacrament is a necessity, not an option. Without it, no one can be saved. That is the point Trent is making.






Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 07, 2019, 05:21:35 PM
I've posted this before, it shows some dogmas and how the BODers deal with them, these are all clear dogmas that do not require any interpretations other than what they say, which is what dogmas are, the FINAL WORD:


https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/)



St. Augustine:   “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
 
Dogmatic Decrees? We Will Interpret Them to Our Desires

Here are excerpts from some dogmas on EENS and how they are responded to (in red) by those who teach that Jews, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, indeed person in all false religions, can be saved by their belief in a god the rewards. Enjoy.


Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
 “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches
that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (pagans and Jews can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, thus they are in the Church. They can’t be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but they can be saved by a belief in a god that rewards.)


Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …(Persons in all false religions can be part of the faithful by their belief in a God that rewards)
 
 Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
 “… this Church outside of which there is no salvation
nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Persons in all false religions by their belief in a God that rewards are inside the Church, so they can have remission of sin. They do not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff because they do not even know that they have to be baptized Catholics, why further complicate things for tem with submission to the pope?)
 
 Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
 “… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…” (one lord, one faith by their belief in a God that rewards, and one invisible baptism by, you guessed it,  their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
 “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all
to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” ( the Catholic faith is belief in a God that rewards)
 
 Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
 “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which
no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.” ( Just pick a few from the above excuses, from here on it’s a cake walk, just create your own burger with the above ingredients. You’ll be an expert at it in no time.)
 
 Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true
Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
 
 Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which
no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
 
 Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which
none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
 
 Council of Trent, Session VI  (Jan. 13, 1547)
 Decree on Justification,
 Chapter IV.
 
 A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
 
 By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And
this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5). (this means you do not need to be baptized or have a desire to be baptized. You can be baptized invisible by desire or no desire, you can call no desire implicit desire, you can also receive water baptism with no desire, no, wait a minute that does not go in both directions, it only works for desire or if you have no desire at all. Come to think of it, just forget about all of it, persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards.)
 
 Chapter VII.
 
 What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
 
 This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
 
 Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father;
the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;(except all persons in false religions, they can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 
 Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439,
ex cathedra:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” (Just ignore that language, all persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 
 Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
 On Baptism
 
 Canon 2.
If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.( any persons in false religions can be invisible baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 Canon 5. If any one saith, that
baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (the pope is also speaking here of the invisible baptism of persons in false religions that are baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
 
 
 Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943:
“Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”( the laver of regeneration can be had invisible and the true faith is  belief in a god that rewards)
 
 Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
 way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
 Christians, and
serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ
orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who
 have not received this consecration.” ( person who believe in a god that rewards do not need the mark, but they are in the Church. Somehow)
 
 
 (Oh, I forgot, no one mentions it anymore, it is now out of fashion, so I did not include it above, invincible ignorance. If you are old fashioned, just throw in a few invinble ignorants up there with the rest of the ingredients)





Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on August 07, 2019, 06:36:40 PM
I definitely think the modern Bishop Barron types, who want to speculate on possibly everyone being saved, are being manifestly foolish.

Foolish?  This many is an open heretic.  Not only on this point but for his suggestion that infidels can be saved without first converting.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Last Tradhican on August 07, 2019, 07:59:09 PM
Quote from: ByzCat3000 on Today at 03:08:01 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/what-exactly-does-the-ccc-say-on-eens-does-it-say-non-christians-can-be-saved/msg662298/#msg662298)
Quote
I definitely think the modern Bishop Barron types, who want to speculate on possibly everyone being saved, are being manifestly foolish.

Foolish?  This many is an open heretic.  Not only on this point but for his suggestion that infidels can be saved without first converting.
I remember reading an article in Catholic Magazine in like 2000 (put out by the then SSPX Papa Stronsay Island Redemptorists), in which an SSPX priest was complaining about a Vatican II cardinal saying that millions of non-Catholic souls are saved by their belief in God that rewards. In the end the only argument from the SSPX priest was about the numbers. That quote above by BZ3000 reminds me of the same.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 12:32:29 PM
Foolish?  This many is an open heretic.  Not only on this point but for his suggestion that infidels can be saved without first converting.
Was +Lefebvre also an open heretic for that?

Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 12:33:48 PM
Foolish?  This many is an open heretic.  Not only on this point but for his suggestion that infidels can be saved without first converting.

I remember reading an article in Catholic Magazine in like 2000 (put out by the then SSPX Papa Stronsay Island Redemptorists), in which an SSPX priest was complaining about a Vatican II cardinal saying that millions of non-Catholic souls are saved by their belief in God that rewards. In the end the only argument from the SSPX priest was about the numbers. That quote above by BZ3000 reminds me of the same.
Hmmmmmmm, that's interesting.  I think "all", "none", and "some" are dogmatically differentiable principles.  "Majority" and "minority" might be as well, but I'm less sure there.  Beyond that, exact numbers are definitely in the category of "best guesses."

Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on August 08, 2019, 12:36:01 PM
Was +Lefebvre also an open heretic for that?

Yes, though he was certainly no formal heretic, just parroting back what he was taught in seminary.  Barron on the other hand speaks and thinks like a Modernist.

Church dogma explicitly teaches that infidels and heretics and schismatics cannot be saved.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 12:40:18 PM
Yes, though he was certainly no formal heretic, just parroting back what he was taught in seminary.  Barron on the other hand speaks and thinks like a Modernist.

Church dogma explicitly teaches that infidels and heretics and schismatics cannot be saved.
How do you distinguish definitively between a formal and a material heretic?  Like how would you know?

(To be clear, I'm not comparing Lefebvre with Barron, I'm just trying to pin down a logical principle)
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Matto on August 08, 2019, 12:47:34 PM
How do you distinguish definitively between a formal and a material heretic?  Like how would you know?

(To be clear, I'm not comparing Lefebvre with Barron, I'm just trying to pin down a logical principle)
Some people have good eyes. They can tell by looking at the man, his hair, or especially his eyes (the windows to the soul). Some people have good ears, they can tell by listening to him speak. My father has a good nose, I think he can tell by sense of smell. Some people have a good sense of touch and they can tell just by shaking his hand. Some people can tell by a kiss. Some people have good minds, they can tell by reading or hearing his thoughts or ideas. There is a sixth sense as well. And some people like St. Padre Pio or St. Jean-Marie Vianney can read souls. The Holy Ghost gives Catholics gifts and he comes to us at our Confirmation. It is up to us to sharpen them through good works and prayer. And of course one has to be careful and humble and not jump to conclusions because the world is a desert with one oasis and a million mirages. It is hard to tell which lake is real if one relies on ones own self instead of relying on God. The faith is everything, the string that pulls the ghosts out of the deep and up into the stars. And brings joy to the world, the God of our youth.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 12:48:31 PM
Some people have good eyes. They can tell by looking at the man, his hair, or especially his eyes (the window to the soul). Some people have good ears, they can tell by listening to him speak. My father has a good nose, I think he can tell by sense of smell. Some people have a good sense of touch and they can tell just by shaking his hand. Some people can tell by a kiss. Some people have good minds, they can tell by reading or hearing his thoughts or ideas. There is a sixth sense as well. And some people like St. Padre Pio or St. Jean-Marie Vianney can read souls. The Holy Ghost gives Catholics gifts and he comes to us at our Confirmation. It is up to us to sharpen them through works and prayer. And of course one has to be careful and humble and not jump to conclusion because the world is a desert with one oasis and a million mirages. It is hard to tell which lake is real if one relies on ones self instead of on God. The faith is everything, the string that pulls the ghosts out of the deep and up into the stars.
Perhaps some people can read souls, but barring that, I prefer to admit that I don't know who's a formal heretic and who isn't.  
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Struthio on August 08, 2019, 12:50:30 PM
Yes, though he was certainly no formal heretic, just parroting back what he was taught in seminary.  Barron on the other hand speaks and thinks like a Modernist.

Lefebvre basically said: Here's the dogma, but it doesn't mean what it says, it rather means ... Then he treats the dogma as if it were a precept allowing for exceptions. Thus, he speaks like a modernist, too.

The problem today is, that many stick to his erroneous ideas with respect to what a dogma is as well as with respect to the specific dogma he mentions.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Matto on August 08, 2019, 12:53:00 PM
Only God knows for sure. But I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. If they seem to be good I assume they are good unless I am given a sign. But I am credulous. And Archbishop Lefebvre seemed to be a good holy Bishop (to me anyway. And I have taken issue with some of the things he has said myself, but the man died on the Feast of the Annunciation! What a blessing!).
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on August 08, 2019, 01:06:36 PM
How do you distinguish definitively between a formal and a material heretic?  Like how would you know?

(To be clear, I'm not comparing Lefebvre with Barron, I'm just trying to pin down a logical principle)

Context.  It's how the Church does it.  When you see an otherwise entirely orthodox bishop utter a problematic statement, the presumption is that it's a material error.  When you see someone constantly spouting Modernism, then there's likely something else going on.  But the ultimate test is whether they submit to a rebuke from the Church.  Of course Barron will not actually get a rebuke because he's actually to the right of many of the hierarchy.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on August 08, 2019, 01:07:55 PM
Lefebvre basically said: Here's the dogma, but it doesn't mean what it says, it rather means ... Then he treats the dogma as if it were a precept allowing for exceptions. Thus, he speaks like a modernist, too.

The problem today is, that many stick to his erroneous ideas with respect to what a dogma is as well as with respect to the specific dogma he mentions.

Yes, his language is modernist but I don't sense any pertinacity on his part.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 01:09:58 PM
Context.  It's how the Church does it.  When you see an otherwise entirely orthodox bishop utter a problematic statement, the presumption is that it's a material error.  When you see someone constantly spouting Modernism, then there's likely something else going on.  But the ultimate test is whether they submit to a rebuke from the Church.  Of course Barron will not actually get a rebuke because he's actually to the right of many of the hierarchy.
That's why I'd say we don't know.  If we ever get a solidly orthodox pope, there would be rebukes, and it would be clear.  But short of that, it seems very, very hard to say.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 08, 2019, 01:30:24 PM
Quote
That's why I'd say we don't know.
We do know that +ABL is a material heretic, because what he said is wrong.  What we don't know is if he's a formal/obstinate heretic.  As Ladislaus said, considering that the vast majority of catholics since the 16/1700s have been corrupted with this error, many of them hold it without knowing it's wrong.  Much like during the Arian heresy, when almost the whole world was in heresy (save for St Athanasius and some followers).  It took decades for the Church hierarchy to fully convert and then the laity followed.  Most were not formal heretics, but they were still wrong. 
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 01:31:32 PM
We do know that +ABL is a material heretic, because what he said is wrong.  What we don't know is if he's a formal/obstinate heretic.  As Ladislaus said, considering that the vast majority of catholics since the 16/1700s have been corrupted with this error, many of them hold it without knowing it's wrong.  Much like during the Arian heresy, when almost the whole world was in heresy (save for St Athanasius and some followers).  It took decades for the Church hierarchy to fully convert and then the laity followed.  Most were not formal heretics, but they were still wrong.
I actually meant we don't know for sure whether Barron is a formal heretic.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 08, 2019, 01:47:11 PM
Quote
I actually meant we don't know for sure whether Barron is a formal heretic.
And only he knows along with God.  For the rest of us, it doesn't matter.  It doesn't change the fact that he's wrong.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 03:04:39 PM
And only he knows along with God.  For the rest of us, it doesn't matter.  It doesn't change the fact that he's wrong.
Ladislaus called me out for saying he was foolish, because that didn't go far enough.  And asserted that he was definitely a formal heretic.  That's what I was addressing.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: LeDeg on August 08, 2019, 04:21:18 PM
Seeing people like Sean's arguments do more for me in deciding that the other side is better backed with their arguments than anything they themselves can make. 
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on August 08, 2019, 04:23:10 PM
Ladislaus called me out for saying he was foolish, because that didn't go far enough.  And asserted that he was definitely a formal heretic.  That's what I was addressing.

Not quite.  I said he was definitely a heretic.  I leave the formal vs. material part to the Church and to God.  But I consider it more likely that he's a formal heretic than that +Lefebvre was ... due to his overall Modernism.  More than anything, though, Barron was a coward who spoke out of human respect.  When interrogated by a Jew regarding the possibility of his salvation, Barron conveyed a sense of hope in the possibility, rather than doing the Catholic thing and telling him:  "No, I'm sorry, but unless you join the Church, you cannot be saved."  But it's most certainly more than just being foolish.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on August 08, 2019, 04:25:21 PM
I actually meant we don't know for sure whether Barron is a formal heretic.

No, I agree.  I'm just speculating.  Ultimately only the Church decides ... but I think it's definitely more than just simple foolishness.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 05:10:58 PM
Seeing people like Sean's arguments do more for me in deciding that the other side is better backed with their arguments than anything they themselves can make.
To be fair, I'm pro BOD, and I think Sean's argument was deplorable and that he solidly lost this debate.  I think I'd probably lose too, Ladislaus and Pax Vobis both know a lot more than I do, but I'm plainly, obviously, engaging in this conversation to learn, and not pretending to *definitively* know I'm right about anything,
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 05:15:57 PM
Not quite.  I said he was definitely a heretic.  I leave the formal vs. material part to the Church and to God.  But I consider it more likely that he's a formal heretic than that +Lefebvre was ... due to his overall Modernism.  More than anything, though, Barron was a coward who spoke out of human respect.  When interrogated by a Jew regarding the possibility of his salvation, Barron conveyed a sense of hope in the possibility, rather than doing the Catholic thing and telling him:  "No, I'm sorry, but unless you join the Church, you cannot be saved."  But it's most certainly more than just being foolish.

For what its worth, I asked Bishop Barron about this at 28 minutes here: http://wordonfireshow.com/episode162/?fbclid=IwAR1vUFdrmyU4k6V4kylQgOlvPJ1mZ_XNNzegkVz5rh8ox4RFYZh2T0cE7NY (http://wordonfireshow.com/episode162/?fbclid=IwAR1vUFdrmyU4k6V4kylQgOlvPJ1mZ_XNNzegkVz5rh8ox4RFYZh2T0cE7NY)

I found his answer pretty unsatisfying.  For one thing, he *only* cites the post Vatican II magisterium, he doesn't really either cite or explain how his views connect with the pre Vatican II magisterium.  For another thing, even if you want to affirm that technically there's a snowball's chance that Shapiro could be saved (and I don't even think its clear that that level of chance exists) he should have emphasized the *grave* danger Shapiro is putting himself in "as is", whereas the way he actually answered implied substantive hope, which is at best grossly imprudent.

For what its worth, I probably would've said something like "Jesus said unless you believe in me you'll be condemned.  You're telling me you don't believe in Jesus.  I'll take you at your word."  

As far as I understand, merely material heretics wouldn't actually be labeled as heretics, would they?  At least without the "material" qualifier? 
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on August 08, 2019, 06:13:25 PM
For what its worth, I asked Bishop Barron about this at 28 minutes here: http://wordonfireshow.com/episode162/?fbclid=IwAR1vUFdrmyU4k6V4kylQgOlvPJ1mZ_XNNzegkVz5rh8ox4RFYZh2T0cE7NY (http://wordonfireshow.com/episode162/?fbclid=IwAR1vUFdrmyU4k6V4kylQgOlvPJ1mZ_XNNzegkVz5rh8ox4RFYZh2T0cE7NY)

I found his answer pretty unsatisfying.  For one thing, he *only* cites the post Vatican II magisterium, he doesn't really either cite or explain how his views connect with the pre Vatican II magisterium.  For another thing, even if you want to affirm that technically there's a snowball's chance that Shapiro could be saved (and I don't even think its clear that that level of chance exists) he should have emphasized the *grave* danger Shapiro is putting himself in "as is", whereas the way he actually answered implied substantive hope, which is at best grossly imprudent.

For what its worth, I probably would've said something like "Jesus said unless you believe in me you'll be condemned.  You're telling me you don't believe in Jesus.  I'll take you at your word."  

As far as I understand, merely material heretics wouldn't actually be labeled as heretics, would they?  At least without the "material" qualifier?

Interesting.  Thank you.  I'll have a listen later.  Well, sometimes the semantics are disputed.  Some people go so far as to claim that there's no such thing as a material heretic, for those in material error are not heretics (since heresy by definition, etymologically, implies pertinacity).  

I would typically use the term "objectively" heretical, since I don't know that it's MERELY material any more than I know that it's formal.

Yes, the answer is extremely unsatisfying.  Even if one thinks there might be a small chance that he could be saved, it's still his obligation to shock him out of his complacency.  St. Pius X's Holy Office once responded, that when Catholics are asked if any given infidel could be or could have been saved, the answer must be no, that they're damned. I believe the question was along the lines of, "Could a Catholic, when questioned, say that Confucius (by way of example) could have been saved respond that it's possible?  Answer: No, Catholics must answer that he was damned."  No hemming, no hawing about implicit possibly this or possibly that.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 06:16:54 PM
Interesting.  Thank you.  I'll have a listen later.  Well, sometimes the semantics are disputed.  Some people go so far as to claim that there's no such thing as a material heretic, for those in material error are not heretics (since heresy by definition, etymologically, implies pertinacity).  

I would typically use the term "objectively" heretical, since I don't know that it's MERELY material any more than I know that it's formal.

Yes, the answer is extremely unsatisfying.  Even if one thinks there might be a small chance that he could be saved, it's still his obligation to shock him out of his complacency.  St. Pius X's Holy Office once responded, that when Catholics are asked if any given infidel could be or could have been saved, the answer must be no, that they're damned.

I believe the question was along the lines of, "Could a Catholic, when questioned, say that Confucius (by way of example) could have been saved respond that it's possible?  Answer: No, Catholics must answer that he was damned."  No hemming, no hawing about implicit possibly this or possibly that.


Gotcha, OK, that's fair.  I will admit, sometimes I wonder, even on the assumption that there *is* a small chance someone like that could, in fact, be saved, whether it would nevertheless be better if the average Catholic thought that couldn't happen.  Because as is often the case (which is probably my biggest problem with the current Church) if an inch is given, a mile is taken.

I believe St Justin Martyr thought Socrates was saved, though of course, his opinion is certainly not infallible and he wasn't the Pope.

(I'd probably answer the question about Corenlius with something like "Only God knows for sure, but I really doubt it."  Whether that's tainted by modernism or not... I'm not sure.) 
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: Ladislaus on August 08, 2019, 06:17:50 PM
So here's the exact wording of the Holy Office under St. Pius X ...

"It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned."

So Barron was rejecting this ruling of the Holy Office by not responding to Shapiro that he would be lost if he did not convert first.
Title: Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 06:23:53 PM
So here's the exact wording of the Holy Office under St. Pius X ...

"It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned."

So Barron was rejecting this ruling of the Holy Office by not responding to Shapiro that he would be lost if he did not convert first.
Well OK given that this is an order, not a dogma, the Pope who gave it is now dead, and the current pope (assuming there is one, which Barron does.... I do too frankly but Barron is probably more sure than I am) would have no issue with Barron's answer.  I can't object to Barron's answer on the grounds of disobedience to the orders of a Pope that's now dead.  That doesn't really make sense.  I object to it because I think it fails to warn a man of serious danger, and I think that's dishonest (even if accidentally), and I'm not OK with that, but I'm well aware that in objecting I'm also objecting to the current Holy See, and someone who wants to soft-peddle isn't.  That is, alas, the cross we have to bear.  Despite being looser on this issue than you and some others here, I definitely don't see how the kind of soft-peddling that we see from Francis, Barron, and others can be reconciled with Florence.  But I don't see how we can use St Pius X's orders as currently binding and impose them on modern prelates.