Author Topic: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved? (Read 4069 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #30 on:** April 10, 2019, 10:15:48 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on April 10, 2019, 09:25:09 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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #31 on:** April 10, 2019, 10:20:40 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on April 10, 2019, 09:25:09 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.

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.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #32 on:** April 10, 2019, 08:08:33 PM »

Quote from: 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 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.

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)

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #33 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.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #34 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.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #35 on:** April 11, 2019, 08:02:07 AM »

Quote from: 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.

Xavier,

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

DR

DecemRationis · « **Reply #36 on:** April 11, 2019, 08:09:03 AM »

Quote from: 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.

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

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #37 on:** August 06, 2019, 03:14:22 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 10, 2019, 10:20:40 AM

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. 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

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** August 06, 2019, 04:24:47 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on August 06, 2019, 03:14:22 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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #39 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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #40 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)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #42 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)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #43 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.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #44 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.

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.

Author Topic: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved? (Read 4069 times)

Ladislaus

Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?

Ladislaus

Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?

ByzCat3000

Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?

Nishant Xavier

Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?

Last Tradhican

Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?

DecemRationis

Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?

DecemRationis

Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?

ByzCat3000

Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?

Ladislaus

Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?

Ladislaus

Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?

Pax Vobis

Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?

Ladislaus

Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?

Pax Vobis

Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?

Pax Vobis

Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?

ByzCat3000

Re: What exactly does the CCC say on EENS? Does it say non-Christians can be saved?