Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: DEBATE on whether protestants and orthodox are within the Church  (Read 11590 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ByzCat3000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1951
  • Reputation: +518/-147
  • Gender: Male
Re: DEBATE on whether protestants and orthodox are within the Church
« Reply #75 on: September 28, 2019, 02:01:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But, you see, this "wiggle room" was manufactured by people who did not want to accept the dogma in its plain sense.  The entire point of the previous post of mine was that there's zero evidence of any such "wiggle room" being in the mind of the Church AT THE TIME that the Church defined the dogma.  This came later from various "interpreters" who imposed their own distinctions on it.  

    As for the Church Fathers, I have never read anything by any of them to imply that in the NEW dispensation anyone could any longer be saved without explicit knowledge of Christ.  Their discussion were exclusively around the possibility for pre-Christ "noble pagans" to be saved.  I created a thread in which I quoted dozens and dozens of Church Fathers, every single one of whom clearly said that there can be no salvation without knowledge of Christ.  They were also unanimous that heretics and schismatics could not be saved.  You had one or two, and no more than that, who speculated that CATECHUMENS who had an explicit intention to be baptized could be saved if they died beforehand.  But the majority of those rejected even that.  But somehow you keep pulling out St. Justin Martyr, even though the quotes you cited clearly refer to pre-Christian noble pagans.

    So I have no idea what you keep talking about attributing such things to the Fathers.  Even Arch-Modernist Karl Rahner admits that the opposite is true.  Now, Rahner only gets around this by applying the Modernist principle that dogma can evolve over time as the Church's understanding of it changes.  But unlike most modern anti-Feeneyites, Rahner had the intellectual honesty to admit:
    Augustine’s letter 43 first two paragraphs says that a donatist who isn’t “earnestly seeking the truth” is not to be amounted a heretic.  I’ll look up the quote later as I’m at work but it should be easy to find.  I realize his opinion isn’t infallible but I don’t think it’s condemned either.
    How that measures up with his thought in general I am not sure.
    St Justin refers to the pre Christian period technically but I’m not sure why the two would be strictly differentiated philosophically.  So a non Christian who dies in 30BC could be saved, but if he dies in 40AD with the same amount of knowledge and ability to have knowledge he’s automatically damned?  That doesn’t seem reasonable to me.  And keep in mind we are talking about Socrates, who wasn’t even Jєωιѕн or part of the Jєωιѕн priestly sacerdotal system.  If he theoretically COULD be saved, I don’t see why a similarly ignorant virtuous pagan wouldn’t have a snowballs chance under similar conditions in the new covenant.  Whether there are any left is a different question.  I agree with whoever said “we shouldn’t count on it”.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: DEBATE on whether protestants and orthodox are within the Church
    « Reply #76 on: September 28, 2019, 02:06:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From the Baltimore Catechism;

    Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
    A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:
    1.(1) Has been validly baptized;
    2.(2) Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
    3.(3) Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

    Q. 511. Why do we say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
    A. We say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, because the necessary conditions are not often found, especially that of dying in a state of grace without making use of the Sacrament of Penance.

    Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
    A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.


    https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-11-on-the-church
    I agree with Baltimore, but I agree with people here who are saying be careful of giving false impressions of safety.  Possibility doesn’t mean likelihood.
    And I think the modernist popes go well beyond the provisions in Baltimore 


    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: DEBATE on whether protestants and orthodox are within the Church
    « Reply #77 on: September 28, 2019, 02:09:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Augustine’s letter 43 first two paragraphs says that a donatist who [is] “earnestly seeking the truth” is not to be amounted a heretic.

    (. . .)

     I realize his opinion isn’t infallible but I don’t think it’s condemned either.

    Seek and ye shall find.

    Will not God reward a person earnestly seeking the truth, with that very truth? How long would such a one remain a Donatist?

    Learning of the Catholic faith, baptism, death in the state of sanctifying grace, if God so wills it.
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    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.

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12508
    • Reputation: +7954/-2452
    • Gender: Male
    Re: DEBATE on whether protestants and orthodox are within the Church
    « Reply #78 on: September 28, 2019, 03:18:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Thomas Aquinas does at one point talk about people being able to be saved through implicit belief in a Mediator, though other times he seems to say that belief in the Trinity is absolutely required (thus I'm not sure how to reconcile him, though I'm sure it can be done.) 
    Incorrect.  St Thomas said that EXPLICIT faith in Christ the Redeemer and the Trinity were the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM beliefs.  He SPECULATED that if a catechumen (i.e. someone who was taking classes to join the Church) died as a catechumen, they would not be damned to hell (but he also said they would not have their temporal punishment removed, nor would they have the indelible mark of membership).  In summary, this is his SPECULATION.  It's not Church teaching.

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12508
    • Reputation: +7954/-2452
    • Gender: Male
    Re: DEBATE on whether protestants and orthodox are within the Church
    « Reply #79 on: September 28, 2019, 03:27:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Augustine’s letter 43 first two paragraphs says that a donatist who isn’t “earnestly seeking the truth” is not to be amounted a heretic.  I’ll look up the quote later as I’m at work but it should be easy to find.  I realize his opinion isn’t infallible but I don’t think it’s condemned either.
    How that measures up with his thought in general I am not sure.
    .
    St Justin refers to the pre Christian period technically but I’m not sure why the two would be strictly differentiated philosophically.  So a non Christian who dies in 30BC could be saved, but if he dies in 40AD with the same amount of knowledge and ability to have knowledge he’s automatically damned?  That doesn’t seem reasonable to me.  And keep in mind we are talking about Socrates, who wasn’t even Jєωιѕн or part of the Jєωιѕн priestly sacerdotal system.  If he theoretically COULD be saved, I don’t see why a similarly ignorant virtuous pagan wouldn’t have a snowballs chance under similar conditions in the new covenant.  Whether there are any left is a different question.  I agree with whoever said “we shouldn’t count on it”.
    Byzcat, you are all over the place.  First you mention Donatists, then Socrates, then a virtuous pagan.  These are 3 TOTALLY different scenarios.  You can't take St Augustine's comments on a Donatist and apply it to a virtuous pagan and vice versa, etc.  The more you try to reason to an answer, the more you'll become confused.  You are trying to use human logic to understand a supernatural mystery.  Will never happen.  
    .
    We must accept Church doctrine with child-like confidence that God is all-merciful and He loves everyone in the world as much as He loves us.  God wills all men to be saved; that's why He created them.  He will give ALL men the chance at salvation (whether we know it, or can prove it, or see it, or hear about it).  Every single human being ever born, God knew them from all eternity before He created the 1st day of the world.  He knew in advance the EXACT situation in which every human being would be born into, and all the details of their life and whom they would come into contact with, and who their parents were.  God knows all; He plans all; He works all for the good of everyone.  If we remember this doctrine about Divine Providence, then we should be comforted that every single person ever created was cared for by God in the best way possible...ESPECIALLY when it concerns spiritual things, for God is most concerned with our salvation, infinitely moreso that we are capable of being.


    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: DEBATE on whether protestants and orthodox are within the Church
    « Reply #80 on: September 28, 2019, 06:32:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Incorrect.  St Thomas said that EXPLICIT faith in Christ the Redeemer and the Trinity were the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM beliefs.  He SPECULATED that if a catechumen (i.e. someone who was taking classes to join the Church) died as a catechumen, they would not be damned to hell (but he also said they would not have their temporal punishment removed, nor would they have the indelible mark of membership).  In summary, this is his SPECULATION.  It's not Church teaching.
    I was referring to this:
    //
    [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Reply to Objection 3. Many of the gentiles received revelations of Christ, as is clear from their predictions. Thus we read (Job 19:25): "I know that my Redeemer liveth." The Sibyl too foretold certain things about Christ, as Augustine states (Contra Faust. xiii, 15). Moreover, we read in the history of the Romans, that at the time of Constantine Augustus and his mother Irene a tomb was discovered, wherein lay a man on whose breast was a golden plate with the inscription: "Christ shall be born of a virgin, and in Him, I believe. O sun, during the lifetime of Irene and Constantine, thou shalt see me again" [Cf. Baron, Annal., A.D. 780. If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: "Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth."//[/color]
    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article7

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: DEBATE on whether protestants and orthodox are within the Church
    « Reply #81 on: September 28, 2019, 06:33:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Byzcat, you are all over the place.  First you mention Donatists, then Socrates, then a virtuous pagan.  These are 3 TOTALLY different scenarios.  You can't take St Augustine's comments on a Donatist and apply it to a virtuous pagan and vice versa, etc.  The more you try to reason to an answer, the more you'll become confused.  You are trying to use human logic to understand a supernatural mystery.  Will never happen.  
    I mentioned all of them as examples that contradict the interpretation of EENS that is worded as "Only good Catholics go to heaven, period"

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12508
    • Reputation: +7954/-2452
    • Gender: Male
    Re: DEBATE on whether protestants and orthodox are within the Church
    « Reply #82 on: September 28, 2019, 07:18:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • EENS only applies to Catholicism, not in the same way for the Old Law.  St Thomas and St Justin (regarding Socrates) were speaking of the Old Law, which just required belief in a Redeemer.  The new law is EENS, which is more strict because the Church is a globally focused, while Judaism was not.  Also the New Law has the advantage of Christ’s sacrifice/graces for all men, so the strictness of EENS is offset by this advantage, which wasn’t available under the Old Law.  


    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: DEBATE on whether protestants and orthodox are within the Church
    « Reply #83 on: September 28, 2019, 08:31:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • EENS only applies to Catholicism, not in the same way for the Old Law.  St Thomas and St Justin (regarding Socrates) were speaking of the Old Law, which just required belief in a Redeemer.  The new law is EENS, which is more strict because the Church is a globally focused, while Judaism was not.  Also the New Law has the advantage of Christ’s sacrifice/graces for all men, so the strictness of EENS is offset by this advantage, which wasn’t available under the Old Law.  
    If this is really what the Church teaches, I of course assent to it, lack of understanding not withstanding.
    Nevertheless this doesn’t make much sense to me.  Again, I don’t see a meaningful difference between an American Indian living in 100 BC vs 100AD.  Neither has actually heard the gospel, at least in any way we can understand.  God could miraculously reveal himself to either.  I don’t see how it makes sense to say the 100 BC Indian can be saved but not the 100 AD one.  And I know you’ll say “well God can send an angel etc.”. I agree but he could in 100 BC too if he wanted. 
    I’m not persuaded that your interpretation passes the reason test 

    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11934
    • Reputation: +7293/-500
    • Gender: Female
    Re: DEBATE on whether protestants and orthodox are within the Church
    « Reply #84 on: September 28, 2019, 08:44:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I’m not persuaded that your interpretation passes the reason test
    Byzcat, there is another condition on salvation which is not dependent on reasoning, but on becoming as a little child.
    And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, [3] And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 
    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.

    +RIP 2024

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: DEBATE on whether protestants and orthodox are within the Church
    « Reply #85 on: September 28, 2019, 08:50:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Byzcat, there is another condition on salvation which is not dependent on reasoning, but on becoming as a little child.
    And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, [3] And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
    That's irrelevant.  

    And frankly this is the *type* of argument a Protestant would use.  "Oh, you have to become like little children, so the faith doesn't have to make sense.  Just accept X, Y, or Z."  It was the rejection of that type of ridiculous thinking that led me out of Protestantism in the first place.

    Now that's not to say you can reject a dogma just because I disagree with it.  But the problem is the people on this forum have an excuse for any example I bring up pre Vatican II that disagrees with them, but then they can't actually explain rationally why the reasoning used in the example would not also apply here.  And then they accuse the Baltimore Catechism and similar things of "liberalizing" even though the Church Fathers at times say very similar things, because the thing isn't *exactly* the same, somehow..


    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: DEBATE on whether protestants and orthodox are within the Church
    « Reply #86 on: September 29, 2019, 03:22:09 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's irrelevant.  

    And frankly this is the *type* of argument a Protestant would use.  "Oh, you have to become like little children, so the faith doesn't have to make sense.  Just accept X, Y, or Z."  It was the rejection of that type of ridiculous thinking that led me out of Protestantism in the first place.

    Now that's not to say you can reject a dogma just because I disagree with it.  But the problem is the people on this forum have an excuse for any example I bring up pre Vatican II that disagrees with them, but then they can't actually explain rationally why the reasoning used in the example would not also apply here.  And then they accuse the Baltimore Catechism and similar things of "liberalizing" even though the Church Fathers at times say very similar things, because the thing isn't *exactly* the same, somehow..
    Your problem ( though not to the degree of others like you),  the problem with the 99% of Catholics today who believe that anyone can be saved, is that they never read the dogmas on EENS. They dismiss them completely because they do not like what they say and they go to anybody and everywhere else to interpret the dogmas according to their own desires.

    Dogmas are the final word from the Holy Ghost. Dogma does not need interpretation, or else it is not the final word, it is useless.


    What those dogmatic Decrees Mean



    From: Who Shall Ascend, by Fr. Wathen



    Being ex cathedra definitions, they must be taken literally, unequivocally, and absolutely. Hence, to attempt to modify or qualify them in any way is to deny them.



    3. The doctrine says clearly that only Catholics go to Heaven; all others are lost, that is, they do not go to Heaven, but to Hell. All who are inclined to dispute this dogma should have the good sense to realize that if this is not what the words of the definitions mean, the Church would never have promulgated such a position. To give any other meaning to these words is to portray the Church as foolish and ridiculous.



    4. The pronouncements indicate that, by divine decree, those only will be saved who are members of the Church when they die. This membership must be formal, real, explicit, and, in those of the (mental) age of reason, deliberate. There is no such thing as "potential" membership in the Church, or "implicit" membership, or "quasi-membership," or "invisible membership," or anything of the kind. Neither can those who are catechumens, that is, those who are preparing to enter the Church, be considered members.



    12. Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so. They were not regarded as heretics or fanatics at the time of their pronouncements, and have never been labelled such by the Church to this very day. It is an easy thing for the people of this "enlightened" age to fall into the modern delusion that the men of former times, especially those of the Middle Ages, were not as bright as we are, so that they sometimes said they knew not what.

    13. The dates of these definitions are extremely important. They mark the time when the Church terminated speculation and discussion among theologians on the subject of the conditions of salvation. All writings on this subject, therefore, which predate these definitions have value only in so far as they corroborate these definitions.


    Just read the first dogma below and tell me what there is to interpret? The other dogmas confirm the same over and over. Who is playing "Protestant self interpreting scripture" here, you or me? Dogma is not scripture, it is the final word. It is dogma that Nadir is talking about when he says that it must be read as children, children listening to their Father's truth.



    Excerpts of the Nine Dogmatic Decrees


    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.”

    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, …

    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.”

    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…”

    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.”

    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.”

    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…”


    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16729
    • Reputation: +1224/-4693
    • Gender: Male
    Re: DEBATE on whether protestants and orthodox are within the Church
    « Reply #87 on: September 29, 2019, 03:39:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Stop with the spam job, poche.  If you have something meaningful to say, then make an intelligent comment that's in context with where the discussion has gone.  Everyone is aware that the erosion of the EENS dogma was well underway by the 18th and 19th centuries.  We're discussing this precisely because we are rejecting said trend as illegitimate.
    I don't think this is spam. While we are at it the Baltimore Catechism also says this;
    Q. 509. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
    A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved.

    https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-11-on-the-church

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: DEBATE on whether protestants and orthodox are within the Church
    « Reply #88 on: September 29, 2019, 03:48:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't think this is spam. While we are at it the Baltimore Catechism also says this;
    Q. 509. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
    A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved.

    https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-11-on-the-church
    What is the year, edition and publisher of the BC you quoted earlier? 

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: DEBATE on whether protestants and orthodox are within the Church
    « Reply #89 on: September 29, 2019, 03:50:01 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. Wathen from his book “Who Shall Ascend”:

    This doctrine (believing dogmas on EENS as they are wriiten)  is the basis for the labors of all who seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity, though most of those who are engaged in this struggle have yet to realize the fact. Without this doctrine, assented to absolutely, Traditionalists have no cause and no argument against the current "reform" in the Church, as it is called.