"Outside the Church there is no salvation"There is so much wrong with the CCC, I only highlighted a few things.
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 was a question on what precisely Vatican II, as clarified by the CCC, teaches and does not teach on EENS and Ecclesiology ....Rat poison is 99% nutritious food.
(1) Firstly, does Vatican II and the CCC say non-Christians (Jєωs, 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?
"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
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.
(1) Firstly, does Vatican II and the CCC say non-Christians (Jєωs, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists etc) can be saved? Imho, the answer is no.
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.
I am a Traditional Roman 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.
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.
(1) Firstly, does Vatican II and the CCC say non-Christians (Jєωs, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists etc) can be saved? Imho, the answer is no.
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."
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
Ladislaus is a misinformed slanderer who deserves to be on permanent ignore.
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."
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.
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.
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.
+Fellay is a Pelagian.
Bishop Fellay: "And quite recently you have a docuмent published by Cardinal Koch on relations with the Jєωs (Docuмent of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jєωs, December 10, 2015). It is a terrible docuмent, completely heretical, which claims that the Jєωs 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 Jєωs:
“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"
A totally shameless slander of a Traditional Catholic Bishop.
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 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.
+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.Sincere question. Is Bishop Fellay's view here any different than Archbishop Lefebvre's, and if so in what way?
XavierSem, when Fellay was talking about the Jєωs, 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.
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.
You are blind, deaf and dumb, and you read texts however you want, even when the person who said them is still alive, Ladislaus.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.
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.
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.
"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.
“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.
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)
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.337XavierSem, 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.
Just wondering, do you have a source for the Fr. Cekada thing?
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.”
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.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:
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.
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:
Dogmas always mean what they say - and always maintain that same meaning forever, as the dogma as decreed at V1 states: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?
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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?[size={defaultattr}]
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}]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 circuмcision 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."
I definitely think the modern Bishop Barron types, who want to speculate on possibly everyone being saved, are being manifestly foolish.
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)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.QuoteI 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.
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?
Foolish? This many is an open heretic. Not only on this point but for his suggestion that infidels can be saved without first converting.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."
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.
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.How do you distinguish definitively between a formal and a material heretic? Like how would you know?
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?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.
(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 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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I actually meant we don't know for sure whether Barron is a formal heretic.
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,
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 Jєω 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?
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.
So here's the exact wording of the Holy Office under St. Pius X ...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.
"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.