This might be fun. I recall when Bishop Sanborn debated Fastiggi. It was enlightening when Bishop Sanborn clearly lost ... due to his position on EENS. If you say that non-Catholics can be saved, then you have to say that non-Catholics can be in the Church ... and, consequently, there's nothing wrong at all with V2 ecclesiology.So is bishop samborn a heretic? What exactly is his position on EENS?
So is bishop samborn a heretic? What exactly is his position on EENS?
Albrecht and Fasitggi were pathetic.They'll never say that Vatican II is in error, or they'll lose their positions, their income source, their customers. So, they have to come up with something to say, they re-invent the wheel.
They'll never say that Vatican II is in error, or they'll lose their positions, their income source, their customers. So, they have to come up with something to say, they re-invent the wheel.Do you believe every single EO, without exception, is "Outside the Church?" Why or why not?
Dimond should have just asked them if a 3 times married Eastern Orthodox (they can marry 3 times in the EO religion) that comes out of a confessional (confessing their sins to a EO priest) and dies, does he go to hell?
One is either in the Church or they are not, if that EO is in the Church he is saved, if he is not then he is damned.
This might be fun. I recall when Bishop Sanborn debated Fastiggi. It was enlightening when Bishop Sanborn clearly lost ... due to his position on EENS. If you say that non-Catholics can be saved, then you have to say that non-Catholics can be in the Church ... and, consequently, there's nothing wrong at all with V2 ecclesiology.I think Vatican II is wrong in terms of its actual application because they gave an inch and took a mile.
Do you believe every single EO, without exception, is "Outside the Church?" Why or why not?You answered your own question, except where you say that "But we don't know for sure", for we do know for sure that they are damned "if they knew what they were doing is wrong and did it anyway, they'd be damned. Even if they didn't know it was wrong, they could be damned for something else that they knew".
I think the answer to your question would be, if they knew what they were doing is wrong and did it anyway, they'd be damned. Even if they didn't know it was wrong, they could be damned for something else that they knew. But we don't know for sure.
Do you believe every single EO, without exception, is "Outside the Church?" Why or why not?
Yes, absolutely. This is and always has been the teaching of the Church.Well technically the dogma is that you have to be inside the Church because outside the Church there is no salvation.
Now, is it possible that there's a PUTATIVE EO somewhere who is so befuddled in mind and so ignorant, knowing only the most basic rudiments of the faith, that he still retains the formal motive of faith? Possibly. BUT, in that case he'd actually be a Catholic, formally speaking, even if materially EO, or rather, appearing to be EO. His state would be similar to that of an infant baptized EO. If he died, say, at the age of 3, he would saved ... but as a Catholic. Starting at around the age of reason, the formal motive of faith gradually wanes. But I assume there could be someone so ignorant and confused that he retains this formal motive.
Here's the dogma: only Catholics can be saved. Period. No exceptions. If anyone at all has ever been saved, it's because he was a Catholic.
Well technically the dogma is that you have to be inside the Church because outside the Church there is no salvation.
From the way you defined the formal motive of faith previously, I’m not sure why it wouldn’t be fairly common for an “EO” to have it. But perhaps I misunderstood you somewhere.
The formal object of faith is the First Truth as manifested in Holy Scripture (http://www.newadvent.org/bible) and in the Church's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) teaching. Hence if anyone does not adhere as to an infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) and Divine rule to the Church's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) teaching, which proceeds from the Church's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) manifested in Holy Scripture (http://www.newadvent.org/bible), such an one has not the habit of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm), but holds the truths (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) not by faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) but by some other principle (II-II, Q. v, a. 3)
St. Thomas Aquinas:My problem with this is that the EO would agree with it, they'd just be wrong about *Which* Church is the Catholic Church. Kind of like how Vatican II Catholics are wrong about which one on Sedevacantist premises, or vice versa.
My problem with this is that the EO would agree with it, they'd just be wrong about *Which* Church is the Catholic Church. Kind of like how Vatican II Catholics are wrong about which one on Sedevacantist premises, or vice versa.
I'm not trying to subjectivize the EO's error, but the EO who truly accepts ALL Of what their Church teaches seems to by this definition have the correct formal motive and simply instead be wrong on *what* is the Catholic Church.
As opposed to say a Protestant who isn't grounding his views in the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, *however* you define that, but on his own interpretation of a book.
I promise i'm not just trying to make excuses here. I'm just trying to reason this through rationally.
But isn't that what you're doing, subjectivizing the rule of faith? Just because they hold something else as their rule of faith, that doesn't make it the true rule of faith. As St. Thomas says, if they substitute something else for the actual rule of faith, they do not have the habit (supernatural virtue) of faith. Sure the EO base their beliefs on an "authority", but it's the wrong authority, a fallible authority.But they still say the Catholic Church is the rule of faith. They just misidentify the Catholic Church. From your vantage point how does this differ from the Novus Ordo?
But they still say the Catholic Church is the rule of faith. They just misidentify the Catholic Church. From your vantage point how does this differ from the Novus Ordo?
No, it's more than just a material mis-identification. They define the Catholic Church as being without a centralized and living authority which alone can give unity and definitive determination to faith. Novus Ordo definition of the rule of faith is still the Catholic one ... even if they wrongly think that the Conciliar Church exercises Magisterium.I think logically (and I realize Pax criticized me for being too rationalist) Sedevacantists are in the same boat then, as they effectively have no living magisterium anymore, based on their interpretation of the dead magisterium. I don't see how the logic used here doesn't necessitate hermeneutic of continuity (which I realize isn't on the table for anyone else here besides me. Most of you are more sure of your positions than I am).
Just try this mental exercise. Pretend that you believe as the EO do that you derive your faith from the Councils and the Fathers. Does that come anywhere near to bringing the absolute certainty that we have with the Magisterium? Just imagine what your "faith" would be like if there were lacking the infallible rule of the living Magisterium.
They differ little from Protestantism because there's no living interpretation. So, instead of just having the Bible and then interpreting it yourself, the EO add some Councils ... and interpret those themselves. They just have expanded the sources of doctrine, but the paradigm is no different from Protestantism and still in the end reduces to private interpretation as far as the subject is concerned. In essence, you could take the texts of the Councils and append them to the Bible, and that would be the Orthodox rule ... materially more extensive than the Protestant but otherwise formally (and by definition) the same in its operation.
I think logically (and I realize Pax criticized me for being too rationalist) Sedevacantists are in the same boat then, as they effectively have no living magisterium anymore, ...
No, the suspension of activity on the part of the living Magisterium is not the as not having one in principle. If they're wrong, then it's a mere material error ... just as I stated earlier regarding the Novus Ordo Catholics.EOs just think its been suspended for 1000 years instead of 61...
For those that believe that EO's are in the Church and can be saved, I ask:No. Not it it’s truly a mortal sin. Which cheating on their wife always would be. The unspoken premise is that an EO is automatically mortally sinning. Of this I am not persuaded
Can a Catholic with one un-confessed mortal sin (say cheating on their wife once) on their soul at death be saved?
If one can be a schismatic and not be guilty of mortal sin, then one can cheat on one's wife and not be guilty of mortal sin. Schism is a far greater sin than infidelity so I think you are being scandalous in acquitting the schismatic while condemning the adulterer as if the lesser crime is greater and the greater crime is lesser.My thinking is not grounded in lesser vs greater, but natural law vs special revelation.
Most EOs do not really understand the debate, or have a solid understanding of the reasons why Rome is the true Church rather than EO, and that's not something that's knowable by sheer natural reason,Of course it can be known by natural reason. I think you meant to say it’s not knowable by the natural law (ie conscience)? If so, few things are. I mean, if you want to become a doctor, lawyer, accountant, programmer, economist - you have to spend time learning, with study and hard work.
Of course it can be known by natural reason. I think you meant to say it’s not knowable by the natural law (ie conscience)? If so, few things are. I mean, if you want to become a doctor, lawyer, accountant, programmer, economist - you have to spend time learning, with study and hard work.Yes I meant natural law. And I agree, many don't. And God will judge them. I'm not saying ignorance is a free ticket to heaven either.
.
Same thing with religion. If you want to know God and Truth, you have to spend TIME in STUDY, PRAYER and contemplation. Then God will enlighten you on many things, including if you are in the wrong religion.
.
But what modern man treats religion like a duty, a vocation or an occupation? Not many. So they think that a few hours on Sunday and some daily prayers is “enough”. Not hardly.
Most EOs do not really understand the debate, or have a solid understanding of the reasons why Rome is the true Church rather than EOOk, if they don’t understand the reasons why Rome is the true church, then we have to ask-
Ok, if they don’t understand the reasons why Rome is the true church, then we have to ask-I think you might misunderstand me. Though maybe I’m not being clear enough.
1) Do they care at all? If not, why not? Laziness? Spiritual apathy?
2) If they do care, but they don’t know, why not? Lack of effort in studying? Have they done some study but not enough?
.
I’m not out to condemn anyone specifically but I also get tired of the modern mindset which makes excuses for everyone generally speaking. This is how doctrine gets watered down! If you can’t condemn a hypothetical EO person, then you cant condemn anyone. So doctrine vs error means nothing. Truth is useless.
.
As is usual, modern man has it backwards. The Church condemns generally those in error, while She treats individuals and their situation with the utmost leniency. Because life is not as clear-cut as a hypothetical case.
The only person I’m confident saying is certainly in hell is Judas iscariot, nevertheless, the further you get fromThe term "invincibly ignorant", whatever it meant in the middle ages, does not mean the same thing these days when nearly everyone has relatively immediate access to whatever information they want to know about.
The truth, the more unlikely invincible ignorance is, and the more likely you won’t be saved even if you’re invincibly ignorant cause you’ll be damned for another mortal sin.
Or at least that’s how I understand it at the moment
I’m just saying I’m not persuaded that they are automatically damned in every case. I think some might have invincible ignorance and might be Catholic despite being intellectually wrong about what the Catholic Church is.As Stubborn pointed out, invincible ignorance has to do with children, the retarded and the Indians living on a remote island. It's impossible to be invincibly ignorant of the Church, yet know about Her teachings. If you want to say they are ignorant (but not invincibly so), then ok. St Thomas says that ignorance is a punishment for sin; sins of omission (spiritual laziness) or sins of act (rejection of the truth).
The only person I’m confident saying is certainly in hell is Judas Iscariot.No one is asking you to damn anyone to hell, but if you can't say that protestants and EOs who die before reconciling with the Church are in hell, then you aren't following Church doctrine. You would argue that "Well, it doesn't make sense to me and I'm trying to figure it out." Ok, that's well and good and you are putting forth efforts to learn, by using this site and by prayers on the matter. Aren't you a convert to Tradition, in some capacity?
As Stubborn pointed out, invincible ignorance has to do with children, the retarded and the Indians living on a remote island. It's impossible to be invincibly ignorant of the Church, yet know about Her teachings. If you want to say they are ignorant (but not invincibly so), then ok. St Thomas says that ignorance is a punishment for sin; sins of omission (spiritual laziness) or sins of act (rejection of the truth).To answer your question, I converted from Protestantism less than a year ago. And whatever the Church teaches, I accept, what I’m unsure of in this case is whether you and stubborn are interpreting the dogma correctly. If you were, and I knew that you were, I would assent to it. I’m always willing to learn.
.No one is asking you to damn anyone to hell, but if you can't say that protestants and EOs who die before reconciling with the Church are in hell, then you aren't following Church doctrine. You would argue that "Well, it doesn't make sense to me and I'm trying to figure it out." Ok, that's well and good and you are putting forth efforts to learn, by using this site and by prayers on the matter. Aren't you a convert to Tradition, in some capacity?
To answer your question, I converted from Protestantism less than a year ago. And whatever the Church teaches, I accept, what I’m unsure of in this case is whether you and stubborn are interpreting the dogma correctly. If you were, and I knew that you were, I would assent to it. I’m always willing to learn.
I’ll have to get to the rest later
The only person I’m confident saying is certainly in hell is Judas Iscariot.
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.
The only person I’m confident saying is certainly in hell is Judas Iscariot.For 25 years since I came back to the faith I have been listening, studying and debating with Catholics who do not believe in EENS as it is written, they can't accept the fact that only baptized Catholics who die before the age of reason, or Catholic adults who die having confessed their mortal sins or would confess their mortal if a priest was available (a perfect act of contrition), could be saved. I have pondered at what was the difference between them and those that believe the dogmas as they are written? My conclusion after all of these years is that the difference between them and I is that they believe that the majority of Catholics are saved, that the Catholics that they see every day (99% of which do not live Catholic lives in my opinion), those bad examples, if they can be saved, then certainly ANY likewise or better behaved non-Catholics can be saved too. The difference is that the saints have always said that scarcely any Catholic is saved. With all of the graces available to 99% of Catholics, they choose the world and are ALL lost. That belief that salvation is so easy, is the root of the disbelief expressed in they saying "The only person I’m confident saying is certainly in hell is Judas Iscariot", and worse yet they say "even Judas Iscariot may not be in hell".
My conclusion after all of these years is that the difference between them and I is that they believe that the majority of Catholics are saved, that the Catholics that they see every day (99% of which do not live Catholic lives in my opinion), those bad examples, if they can be saved, then certainly ANY likewise or better behaved non-Catholics can be saved too.They even go so far as to say that Judas may not be in Hell, like JPII did. Meanwhile, of all of my family members and close family that have died since I was a child, maybe near to 100 people, I am certain of only 3 that were saved and of the others maybe another 10 may have made it to Purgatory, maybe not. AND all were baptized Catholics who died from 1970 till present.
LOL. Maybe Confucius and Judas are playing checkers down there by themselves.Should be that the presumption is that all non-Catholics *are* lost - no?
But the presumption is that all non-Catholics are not lost. So if someone asks me whether a certain EO was saved, I have to respond no. Now, could God have miraculously converted someone through some direct inspiration on their deathbed? Of course. But we have no way of knowing that, so we presume that they have been lost. To say anything else is to undermine EENS dogma.
It seems most likely to me that most Catholics will be damned, so your broad brushes don’t apply to meSt. John Marie Vianney said that the number of those saved was as few as the grapes left on the vine after the pickers had finished their work.
It seems most likely to me that most Catholics will be damned, so your broad brushes don’t apply to meIt does apply to you, because deep down you believe that the non-Catholics who behaved better than the "bad" Catholics are saved.
It does apply to you, because deep down you believe that the non-Catholics who behaved better than the "bad" Catholics are saved.No you misunderstood me. I think it’s a point of revelation that Judas is damned so I disagree with those who say that he could have been saved (like JPII.). There are many, many others who seem much more likely to have been damned than not, but I can’t know for SURE that any PARTICULAR one is damned. Even hitler, while it seems almost impossible, could’ve repented at the very last second. I don’t know with ABSOLUTE certainty that he did not. As far as the various baptized Christians who are not visibly Catholic goes, I think some of them have mitigating enough factors that they aren’t mortally culpable for this, I agree with the Baltimore catechism and the accompanying explanations of it on this, but that doesn’t mean I think such people are LIKELY to be saved. I think those who are visibly Protestant are less likely to be saved cause they’d have to have perfect contrition, which is hard to do.
Besides, you stated that you only believe that Judas is in Hell, so you can't say that "It seems most likely to me that most Catholics will be damned".
As long as one is living, they can convert and be saved. When we talk of damnation, we talk about those who already are dead.
I’m just saying Judas is the only PARTICULAR individual of who’s damnation we can be certainWe are on two opposite poles you and I. You believe for certain on only one person, Judas, being damned, while I believe with certainty that only 3 of 100 of my dead family are saved (and maybe another 10 made it to Purgatory, maybe not).
They even go so far as to say that Judas may not be in Hell, like JPII did. Meanwhile, of all of my family members and close family that have died since I was a child, maybe near to 100 people, I am certain of only 3 that were saved and of the others maybe another 10 may have made it to Purgatory, maybe not. AND all were baptized Catholics who died from 1970 till present.
No you misunderstood me. I think it’s a point of revelation that Judas is damned so I disagree with those who say that he could have been saved (like JPII.). There are many, many others who seem much more likely to have been damned than not, but I can’t know for SURE that any PARTICULAR one is damned. Even hitler, while it seems almost impossible, could’ve repented at the very last second. I don’t know with ABSOLUTE certainty that he did not. As far as the various baptized Christians who are not visibly Catholic goes, I think some of them have mitigating enough factors that they aren’t mortally culpable for this, I agree with the Baltimore catechism and the accompanying explanations of it on this, but that doesn’t mean I think such people are LIKELY to be saved. I think those who are visibly Protestant are less likely to be saved cause they’d have to have perfect contrition, which is hard to do.Here's the thing though, although most unlikely, it is possible that a person who for their whole life rejected the graces to join the Church, could possibly be said to have a last minute repentance, or death bed conversion, or some other noble sounding last nanosecond perfect contrition, but what we do not know is if God actually decides to accept those questionable-at-best last moment regrets. All we can say is that according to dogma, do not depend on it.
As far as the various baptized Christians who are not visibly Catholic goes, I think some of them have mitigating enough factors that they aren’t mortally culpable for this, I agree with the Baltimore catechism and the accompanying explanations of it on this, but that doesn’t mean I think such people are LIKELY to be saved.Church dogma says that baptized non-catholics cannot gain heaven.
I think those who are visibly Protestant are less likely to be saved cause they’d have to have perfect contrition, which is hard to do.Church dogma says that unbaptized protestants cannot gain heaven.
Here's the thing though, although most unlikely, it is possible that a person who for their whole life rejected the graces to join the Church, could possibly be said to have a last minute repentance, or death bed conversion, or some other noble sounding last nanosecond perfect contrition, but what we do not know is if God actually decides to accept those questionable-at-best last moment regrets. All we can say is that according to dogma, do not depend on it.I actually think this is conceptually pretty clear.
I actually think this is conceptually pretty clear.
If this was true perfect contrition God would accept it. Mere “regret” without perfect contrition would not.
What I guess the real question is, to put it simply, is every single Protestant and EO ...
Last Tradician is much more confident of the damnation of particular individuals than I am
I actually think this is conceptually pretty clear.Not really true for the simple reason that only God can say if the (supposed) perfect contrition was perfect enough for Him. Remember He, being God, is not one who has to take what we have to offer or he's out of luck. God has some pretty high standards after all, presuming that He *will* accept a perfect contrition is in reality, actually meaningless to Him.
If this was true perfect contrition God would accept it. Mere “regret” without perfect contrition would not.
Well, he's merely following the directives of the Holy Office. Are you not confident that Confucius is lost?Absolutely confident? No. I can appreciate why St Pius X wanted absolutely no qualifiers, because it’s easy for people to get confused, but in and of itself this wouldn’t be a de fide pronouncement, at most it was a binding command on all Catholics living during St Pius Xs pontificate.
Byzcat, you’re confusing church doctrine with salvific reality. Church doctrine says Confucius is lost. No one knows where Confucius is, really. Church doctrine is teaching BASED ON APPEARANCES. That’s all we have to go on. That’s how Christ told us to judge “He who believes and is baptized is saved; he who doth not believe is condemned.” If you keep thinking of salvation in terms of “possibilities” then you’re in for a world of confusion. This is not how a catholic should look at things.Then why isn’t “he appears lost but we don’t know” sufficient? Why do we have to say he was damned?
Then why isn’t “he appears lost but we don’t know” sufficient? Why do we have to say he was damned?
Because the moment you begin attempting to articulate this, EENS is undermined. We stick with Church teaching. Confucius is lost.I would consider EENS to be less what’s threatened here, and more the ecclesiology that says that ONLY visible members are inside the Church. And I don’t think this has been adequately proven, and I’ve raised objections to it previously, that I don’t think have been adequately refuted. Certainly some have agreed with you throughout church history but I’m not yet convinced that all did even prior to 1600 (Justin martyr for instance).
If someone asks, "Do you think Confucius may have been saved?" Answer is an unequivocal, "No" as in "No I don't." As soon as you start into the usual, "Well, maybe." then the interlocutor walks away in his mind with, "So is the Church even serious about" EENS? You can come up with 10 pages of distinctions and explanations for why it doesn't violate EENS, but the only take-away is the impression that salvation is possible outside the Church.
Let's say I go buy a lottery ticket, and the odds are one in ten million that I might win. If someone asks me, "So, do you think you might win?" Of course I'd answer "No.". I buy the ticket HOPING I might win, but I really don't think I'm going to. Is there a one-in-ten-million chance I might win? Yes. But that isn't enough to justify a "Yes" answer to "Do you think you might win?"
Inside the Church = baptized, active member who believes all the Church teaches.According to what though? That’s the unproven premise here
.
Anything else is just a theory and probably heretical.
According to plain English from doctrinal statements, which are infallible. V2, Baltimore catechisms, various theologians, scriptural commentary, catholic encyclopedias...none of these are infallible. But doctrine is.I think this is my overarching objection. That basically Feeneyites (for lack of a better word) interpret dogmatic statements the way Protestants interpret scripture, according to some defined "plain meaning", concluding that everyone who didn't accept "the obvious" (and I mean even before Vatican II, not just after Vatican II) must have been stupid or an infiltrator.
.
What you need to do is go read the council commentary from Trent and Florence and see what they had to say about doctrine. All else is speculation.
I think this is my overarching objection. That basically Feeneyites (for lack of a better word) interpret dogmatic statements the way Protestants interpret scripture, according to some defined "plain meaning", concluding that everyone who didn't accept "the obvious" (and I mean even before Vatican II, not just after Vatican II) must have been stupid or an infiltrator.
That was always doctrine’s intention. Truth is supposed to be simple and plain. The Faith is supposed to be as easy to understand for a child as an adult. Doctrine obviously has subtleties which are sublime and deep, but the main truth can be learned by all.
Well, no, obviously you go with the Church's interpretation. But what has happened to EENS is that people over time have changed the alleged Church interpretation over time. That's actually how Modernism works. After a few decades, "uhm, well, you know, what the Church REALLY meant by that dogma was ...". On the dogma of EENS, we've gotten to the point that the original meaning of the Church is now widely denounced as HERETICAL. So the devil has worked a major coup on this dogma.I'll have to look. I do know both that some Church Fathers leave some wiggle room, and also that wiggle room existed before Vatican II. 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.) I agree that if the original intent of Florence was as you say, then that must be the correct understanding. I'm just not certain that was the case. I'll have to research more. Interesting point about Descartes.
What Pax is saying is to read the commentaries on the Councils that were made RIGHT AROUND THE TIME of the Council. There's zero indication that the Church was just using language freely and liberally, but intended the dogma in its plain sense. What the Church clearly meant was: "Hey, you see that guy over there? He's a Protestant. He's going to hell unless he converts first." The Church didn't mean the dogma as some abstract principle. It was very concrete. Read the writings of the saints; they minced no words that Protestants are all lost, that Jews are all lost, etc. None of them made exceptions for the good-hearted sincere Protestant, or the well-meaning Jew. This notion of "subjectivism" and "relativism" of truth had not so much cast a shadow on those Catholics' minds yet. Things basically were, to them, what they appeared to be. They did not see the world as just teeming with "Anonymous Catholics". This philosophical notion that reality was in your mind rather than easily observed started with philosophers like Descartes, and found its way into theology through phenomenology. More and more what was real was what your mind imposed on reality rather than the other way around, the reality that reflected itself in your mind. So the modern mind began being polluted with subjectivism. And ultimately this lead to Vatican II. When simple lay Catholics used to read the dogma EENS as reflected in the catechisms of their day, they interpreted that, quite simply as, "Those Protestant neighbors of ours, the Smiths, well, they're on their way to hell unless they become Catholics before they die." This notion of, "They're convinced that they're right, so they could go to heaven" would have gotten you labeled as a heretical EENS-denier, and you would have been laughed to scorn.
So the Catholic principle is that we must hold he dogma in the sense that the Church mean it WHEN she pronounced it. We don't practice "eisegesis" and read foreign interpretations into it after the fact, as our "awareness" of what the dogma REALLY means "grows". What was the mind and attitude of the Church AT THE TIME the Church defined the dogma, not that attitude imposed by polluted minds five centuries later.
From the Baltimore Catechism;WWII: Gunner fell 22,000 feet WITHOUT a parachute and survived
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 (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-11-on-the-church)
I'll have to look. I do know both that some Church Fathers leave some wiggle room, and also that wiggle room existed before Vatican II. 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.) I agree that if the original intent of Florence was as you say, then that must be the correct understanding. I'm just not certain that was the case. I'll have to research more. Interesting point about Descartes.
“. . . we have to admit . . . that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus,’ and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory nαzιanzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.” (Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church, translated by Karl H. Kruger, pp.40, 41, 57)
From the Baltimore Catechism;
WWII: Gunner fell 22,000 feet WITHOUT a parachute and survived
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/wwii-gunner-fell-22000-feet-without-a-parachute-and-survived.html (https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/wwii-gunner-fell-22000-feet-without-a-parachute-and-survived.html)
Hey Poche look at that, a man fell out of a plane from 22,000 feet without a parachute and survived! Let's go jump off planes without parachutes. You go first.
That's the equivalent of posting that quote from the Baltimore Catechism in this debate, it's only purpose is to tell people they can jump from 22,000 feet without a parachute, telling them, yes, you can survive, so you can jump without a parachute. Unfortunately, the faith does not work the way of the nature, and one can believe whatever they want to believe and will never be burned in this world (and in this case end up splattered on the ground).
WWII: Gunner fell 22,000 feet WITHOUT a parachute and survived
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/wwii-gunner-fell-22000-feet-without-a-parachute-and-survived.html (https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/wwii-gunner-fell-22000-feet-without-a-parachute-and-survived.html)
That's a good metaphor. Apart from the theological problems with EENS-denial, there are also the pragmatic consequences. Father Feeney famously pointed out that the teaching about Baptism of Desire actually undermined the ability for people to attain it, since people stop desiring Baptism in favor of desiring the desire for Baptism. What GOOD can possibly be done by preaching the "good news" of BoD from the rooftops? In the final analysis, it's done to curry human respect, but does not actually serve for anyone's benefit; it gives people a false hope that there can be salvation outside the Church.I can understand this but I guess I can see other ways of accomplishing the same thing, IF Baltimore/most trad priests are correct about this. You can say things like “salvation is almost impossible outside the visible bounds of the Church”. You could make an analogy to jumping without a parachute from 22,000 feet. You could even say something like “most of the saints said even most Catholics are damned, how much harder is it gonna be without the sacraments and while believing in faith alone?”
If some Protestant comes up to you and asks, "Is it true that Catholics believe that there's no salvation outside the Church?", you can answer, in the manner of the Holy Office under St. Pius X, and then perhaps trouble their conscience enough for them to keep seeking the truth, or you can hem and haw, "Well, the Church says that you can be saved if you're sincere." ... and then leave them complacent in their heresy. You make them FEEL better by equivocating, but you are doing them a great disservice.
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.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.
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:
From the Baltimore Catechism;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.
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 (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-11-on-the-church)
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.
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.
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.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.
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”.
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:
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"
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.
I’m not persuaded that your interpretation passes the reason testByzcat, there is another condition on salvation which is not dependent on reasoning, but on becoming as a little child.
Byzcat, there is another condition on salvation which is not dependent on reasoning, but on becoming as a little child.That's irrelevant.
And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, [3] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=18&l=3-#x) 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.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.
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..
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;
I don't think this is spam. While we are at it the Baltimore Catechism also says this;What is the year, edition and publisher of the BC you quoted earlier?
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 (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-11-on-the-church)
Fr. Wathen from his book “Who Shall Ascend”:Ill side with Augustine over Wathen... who? lol
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.
Seek and ye shall find.I’m willing to grant that normatively he wouldn’t remain a donatist. But the way Augustine frames it, the guy ALREADY isn’t a heretic, because of his lack of obstinacy. Not just that he might become not a heretic some day.
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.
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.
St Justin refers to the pre Christian period technically but I’m not sure why the two would be strictly differentiated philosophically.
I mentioned all of them as examples that contradict the interpretation of EENS that is worded as "Only good Catholics go to heaven, period"
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.
even though the Church Fathers at times say very similar things, because the thing isn't *exactly* the same, somehow..
I was referring to this:
//
Reply to Objection 3. Many of the gentiles received revelations (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) of Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), as is clear from their predictions. Thus we read (Job 19:25 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/job019.htm#verse25)): "I know (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) that my Redeemer liveth." The Sibyl too foretold certain things about Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), as Augustine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) states (Contra Faust. xiii, 15). Moreover, we read in the history of the Romans, that at the time (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14726a.htm) 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) shall be born of a virgin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm), and in Him, I believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm). 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm), they were not saved without faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) through believing (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) in Divine providence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm), since they believed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) that God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) would deliver mankind (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) of the Spirit (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) to those who knew (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), as stated in Job 35:11 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/job035.htm#verse11): "Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth."//
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article7 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article7)
“. . . we have to admit . . . that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus,’ and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory nαzιanzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.” (Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church, translated by Karl H. Kruger, pp.40, 41, 57)
There's a typical example of you being all over the place, no focus. Fr. Wathen is talking about Vatican II, the current situation of the Church, St. Augustine never said anything about Vatican II, he lived 1600+ years ago.QuoteFr. 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.
Ill side with Augustine over Wathen... who? lol
I’m willing to grant that normatively he wouldn’t remain a donatist. But the way Augustine frames it, the guy ALREADY isn’t a heretic, because of his lack of obstinacy.A Donatist cannot be compared to a Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or pagan because Donatism is an attack against Catholicism. Donatism is similar to the novus ordo. St Augustine lived during the time of this heresy and he’s commenting on people who were brought up AS CATHOLICS who were confused by the errors or Donatism (much like novus ordo). He’s saying that such and such a person he knows is NOT OBSTINATE in the donatist error, so they aren’t a heretic. Ok, there are some novus ordo Catholics like this too.
Protestants are so far removed from Catholicism that it’s not close. You can’t compare Donatism to any other false religion and certainly not to paganism.St. Peter Julian Eymard – Bad Catholic vs Good Protestant
That's irrelevant.It is interesting that you take up the offensive in respose to simple advice from a caring person who is more steeped in the Catholic Faith.
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..
Look, this is NOT an interpretation. If by chance you come to the conclusion that some people who appear to be outside the Church are in fact Catholic, then go for it. But, other than that, it's just clearly heretical to say that anyone other than Catholics can be saved. Period. If anyone is saved, then it is only because they're a Catholic ... somehow.I knew what pax meant, or at least, I think I did, and I was replying based on that
The dogma itself is written very simply. Outside the Church there is no salvation. Plain simple English.Good points. To be clear I agree with all this. I, too, criticize the notion of presuming on that type of grace
Rationally, I have the same issue as Byzcat where a pagan Chinaman dying a month before the New Covenant having a chance at salvation but one a month after having no chance at it seems nonsensical.
Normally, dogma takes clear precedent there and I submit reason to dogma. But then you have saints and popes saying that the invincibly ignorant CAN be saved after all. And nowadays even the vast majority of Trad Catholic clergy teach that(indeed many teach that even vincibly ignorant infidels can be saved, which is just beyond ridiculous in the face of EENS so I won't even go there). So whether it is true or not, it seems permissable to believe the possibility that they can be saved. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't spread the faith to them, as even if salvation were possible for the invincibly ignorant it would still be a 22k feet fall scenario.
The issue of baptised non-Catholics is a tougher one. Potentially they could be saved if they were somehow forgiven their sins, but both perfect contrition and Confession require you to be within the Church. But I do wonder what exactly qualifies as that. For example, supposing I'm a Catholic in Greece in 1053. 1054 rolls around and the pope and my patriarch excommunicate each other(an event which would later be known as the start of the Great Schism). But I'm some peasant so I don't hear about this and even if I do I probably have no idea what that means. I keep going to my local (eastern rite, i.e newly Orthodox) church. I die. Am I damned for schism?
I am reading this debate with great interest. I read something recently from Bishop Schneider’s statement on the Amazon Synod which caught my attention. He pointed out that married clergy became accepted in the Greek Church in the 7th Century. I immediately realized this was during the time when the Church was united. Also, divorce and remarriage also existed in the East during the time the Church was united.Celibacy is a discipline, not divine law. The pope could theoretically get rid of it tomorrow morning. Some Catholic rites allow married clergy, and there are some cases of convert clergymen to the Latin rite who remain married.
How does this factor into this debate as it appears that the Popes didn’t break Communion with the East over these huge issues. Also, what about these same issues much later at the Council of Florence?
Thank you,
Sebastian
.. supposing I'm a Catholic in Greece in 1053. 1054 rolls around and the pope and my patriarch excommunicate each other(an event which would later be known as the start of the Great Schism). But I'm some peasant so I don't hear about this and even if I do I probably have no idea what that means. I keep going to my local (eastern rite, i.e newly Orthodox) church. I die. Am I damned for schism?I hope you don't sit up nights thinking about what happened to a peasant in 1054 or what happened to the first unbaptized person that died one second after the new covenant. How about the person that rejected the Immaculate Conception and died 5 minutes after it was declared a dogma?
I hope you don't sit up nights thinking about what happened to a peasant in 1054 or what happened to the first unbaptized person that died one second after the new covenant. How about the person that rejected the Immaculate Conception and died 5 minutes after it was declared a dogma?Well that first unbaptised guy who died off in who-knows-where a second after the New Covenant, as irrelevant and insignificant as he may seem, is still a soul like any other. The question is how do you reconcile God's justice with the fact that he had no way of achieving salvation but a guy who died 2 seconds before him had? It seems arbitrary, and God is not arbitrary.
I think its time to go pick a few acres of corn.
Well that first unbaptised guy who died off in who-knows-where a second after the New Covenant, as irrelevant and insignificant as he may seem, is still a soul like any other. The question is how do you reconcile God's justice with the fact that he had no way of achieving salvation but a guy who died 2 seconds before him had? It seems arbitrary, and God is not arbitrary.That's nick picking.
The question is how do you reconcile God's justice with the fact that he had no way of achieving salvationWe don't know that this imaginary person didn't have the gospel preached to them by a bilocated Apostle/disciple, or had a spiritual dream, or had an visit from an angel. To assume that God damned one to hell without them being given a chance at heaven, is blasphemy, pure and simple. Just because we don't have a HISTORICAL record of God's MIRACULOUS workings in every soul, doesn't mean that they don't happen.
Theoretically is the "visibly" Eastern Orthodox person who believes all things Catholic who dies in such a state damned?
Theoretically is the "visibly" Eastern Orthodox person who believes all things Catholic who dies in such a state damned? Or would this type of situation never occur?A person who accepts all the teachings of the Catholic Church is not "Orthodox" but orthodox. He is ready to be received into the One true Church and reject Eastern Orthodoxy.
What I’m saying is that until this EO is received into the Church he still appears as EO to those who don’t know him. Does merely professing the faith and rejecting his EO error suffice to make him visibly a member or is there more to it than that?Visible means everybody sees it and knows it. Therefore, the person would have to do as Nadir wrote for him to be visible a Catholic.
If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that 'they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.' There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.