Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matto on August 10, 2016, 11:00:40 PM
-
That is my question. Do you think there are many virtuous pagans? People who do not have the true faith like natives in the jungle who do not commit sin without the aid of Church or the sacraments? What do you think?
-
I think that if true virtue is scarcely found even among Catholics who have all the supernatural aid of the True Faith, it would be almost impossible for a pagan to be virtous.
Virtous people are a rarity.
-
That is my question. Do you think there are many virtuous pagans? People who do not have the true faith like natives in the jungle who do not commit sin without the aid of Church or the sacraments? What do you think?
A large amount of the world is full of uncontacted peoples - tribes living in the insular parts of a jungle or island completely separated from civilization. This makes the chance of them hearing of the Church zero. So, I think so.
-
That is my question. Do you think there are many virtuous pagans? People who do not have the true faith like natives in the jungle who do not commit sin without the aid of Church or the sacraments? What do you think?
First, if such a person existed at all, God would see to it that he was brought into the Church, or was given every opportunity to enter it.
Beyond that, by 'virtuous', I take it you mean 'sinless'. All the natives in the jungle I ever heard of worship false gods, which sins against the 1st commandment. But supposing there is a tribe out there who does not worship any god or has no "religion" at all, we're still talking about a person who, due to original sin, is prone to sin just as we all are. So no, I do not think it possible that even one such person has ever existed and remained outside the Church.
-
Beyond that, by 'virtuous', I take it you mean 'sinless'. All the natives in the jungle I ever heard of worship false gods, which sins against the 1st commandment. But supposing there is a tribe out there who does not worship any god or has no "religion" at all, we're still talking about a person who, due to original sin, is prone to sin just as we all are. So no, I do not think it possible that even one such person has ever existed and remained outside the Church.
By "virtuous" I mean one who does not commit grave sins, NOT in the sense that they are in a state of sanctifying grace.
-
I still don't think such a person exists - except perhaps those who have not reached the age of reason and the very elderly or ill.
Sin is all about selfishness, about pleasing our self, our wants and desires period - that is what comes naturally to every human. Catholics must ask heaven to aid us so that with their help, we can go against our natural inclinations because without Their help, we don't stand a chance of not committing mortal sins.
So natives without God are without the help we all need to avoid grave sin, IOW, because there is nothing to stop them from committing grievous sins, the presumption must be that without the aid of Church or the sacraments, that there are no virtuous natives.
-
I think hardly anyone has supernatural virtues and I believe many Catholics are not virtuous in the natural sense and lack the supernatural virtue of charity often times being in the state of mortal sin.
-
It is known to Us and to you that those who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, and who, carefully observing the natural law and its precepts which God has inscribed in the hearts of all, and who, being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, through the working of the divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God, who clearly sees, inspects and knows the minds, the intentions, the thoughts and the habits of all, will, by reason of His supreme goodness and kindness, never allow anyone who has not the guilt of willful sin to be punished by eternal sufferings. Pius IX
We simply admit the possibility and let God do the rest. We judge appearance, He reads hearts.
-
I think this is an interesting topic not just because of the issue of BOD but also about the possibility of avoiding mortal sin without sanctifying grace. I know for myself and I am sure for others it can be difficult to avoid sin even with the aid of the sacraments. So how hard must it be for one without sanctifying grace and without the sacraments to avoid mortal sin.
-
I think this is an interesting topic not just because of the issue of BOD but also about the possibility of avoiding mortal sin without sanctifying grace. I know for myself and I am sure for others it can be difficult to avoid sin even with the aid of the sacraments. So how hard must it be for one without sanctifying grace and without the sacraments to avoid mortal sin.
Exactly.
Men are not basically good, they are naturally bad because we are all born with original sin. God purposely designed and created us so that it goes against our nature to not sin. We only cannot sin when we accept the graces He gives us - that's the only chance we have of not sinning, so natives without the Church do not stand a chance.
-
That is my question. Do you think there are many virtuous pagans? People who do not have the true faith like natives in the jungle who do not commit sin without the aid of Church or the sacraments? What do you think?
A large amount of the world is full of uncontacted peoples - tribes living in the insular parts of a jungle or island completely separated from civilization. This makes the chance of them hearing of the Church zero. So, I think so.
A large amount of the world is full of uncontacted peoples? Where specifically are these "large amount" of people?
Do you think that the pre-Colombus Mayans were born in their time and place by chance?
Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circuмstance, and that in millions of possible combinations ... Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, he decides to realize the actual world with all the circuмstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it." [The Catholic Encyclopedia Appleton, 1909, on Augustine, pg 97]
-
From Mystical City of God , by Sister Mary of Agreda.
537. Seeing him (Judas) thus beside himself Lucifer inspired him with the thought of hunting up the priests, returning to them the money and confessing his sin. This Judas hastened to do, and he loudly shouted at them those words: "I have sinned, betraying innocent blood!" (Matth. 27, 4). But they, not less hardened, answered that he should have seen to that before. The intention of the demon was to hinder the death of Christ if possible, for reasons already given and yet to be given (No. 419). This repulse of the priests, so full of impious cruelty, took away all hope from Judas and he persuaded himself that it was impossible to hinder the death of his Master. So thought also the demon, although later on he made more efforts to forestall it through Pilate. But as Judas could be of no more use to him for his purpose, he augmented his distress and despair, persuading him that in order to avoid severer punishments he must end his life. Judas yielded to this terrible deceit, and rushing forth from the city, hung himself on a dried-out figtree (Matth. 27, 5). Thus he that was the murderer of his Creator, became also his own murderer. This happened on Friday at twelve o'clock, three hours before our Savior died. It was not becoming that his death and the consummation of our Redemption should coincide too closely with the execrable end of the traitorous disciple, who hated him with fiercest malice.
538. The demons at once took possession of the soul of Judas and brought it down to hell. His entrails burst from the body hanging upon the tree (Acts 1, 18). All that saw this stupendous puniishment of the perfidious and malicious disciple for his treason, were filled with astonishment and dread. The body remained hanging by the neck for three days, exposed to the view of the public. During that time the Jєωs attempted to take it down from the tree and to bury it in secret, for it was a sight apt to cause great confusion to the pharisees and priests, who could not refute such a testimony of his wickedness. But no efforts of theirs sufficed to drag or separate the body from its position on the tree until three days had passed, when, according to the dispensation of divine justice, the demons themselves snatched the body from the tree and brought it to his soul, in order that both might suffer eternal punishment in the profoundest abyss of hell. Since what I have been made to know of the pains and chastisements of Judas, is worthy of fear-inspiring attention, I will according to command reveal what has been shown me concerning it. Among the obscure caverns of the infernal prisons was a very large one, arranged for more horrible chastisements than the others, and which was still unoccupied; for the demons had been unable to cast any soul into it, although their cruelty had induced them to attempt it many times from the time of Cain unto that day. All hell had remained astonished at the failure of these attempts, being entirely ignorant of the mystery, until the arrival of the soul of Judas, which they readily succeeded in hurling and burying in this prison never before occupied by any of the damned. The secret of it was, that this cavern of greater torments and fiercer fires of hell, from the creation of the world, had been destined for those, who, after having received Baptism, would damn themselves by the neglect of the Sacraments, the doctrines, the Passion and Death of the Savior, and the intercession of his most holy Mother. As Judas had been the first one who had so signally participated in these blessings, and as he had so fearfully misused them, he was also the first to suffer the torments of this place, prepared for him and his imitators and followers.
539. This mystery I was commanded to reveal more particularly for a dreadful warning to all Christians, and especially to the priests, prelates and religious, who are accustomed to treat with more familiarity the body and blood of Christ our Lord, and who, by their office and state are his closer friends. In order to avoid blame I would like to find words and expressions sufficiently strong to make an impression on our unfeeling obduracy, so that we all may take a salutary warning and be filled with the fear of the punishments awaiting all bad Christians according to the station each one of us occupies. The demons torment Judas with inexpressible cruelty, because he persisted in the betrayal of his Master, by whose Passion and Death they were vanquished and despoiled of the possession of the world. The wrath which they had conceived against the Savior and his blessed Mother, they wreck, as far as is allowed them, on all those who imitate the traitorous disciple and who follow him in his contempt of the evangelical law, of the Sacraments and of the fruits of the Redemption. And in this the demons are but executing just punishment on those members of the mystical body of Christ, who have severed their connection with its head Christ, and who have voluntarily drifted away and delivered themselves over to the accursed hate and implacable fury of his enemies. As the instruments of divine justice they chastise the redeemed for their ingratitude toward their Redeemer. Let the children of the Church consider well this truth, for it cannot fail to move their hearts and induce them to evade such a lamentable fate.
-
I have met a lot more people who are outwardly good who are pagans, than Catholics. There are a lot more bad Catholics than good Catholics. Is it because the devil particularly assails those who have the Truth? A pagan can try to be good, by acting upon the graces that God sends him. He can choose to practice virtue and abhor vice, and the knowledge of which is which, the natural law, is written on his heart just as it is written on ours, as we are all created by God.
I've known several saintly Catholics, and know of hundreds or thousands of canonized saints. I've never met a saintly pagan, only fairly virtuous ones. Only God, who reads hearts, knows how much these fairly virtuous pagans acted in good faith, what graces they cooperated with, what graces they rejected and refused to act upon, and how culpable these people really were for the actions and inactions of their lives. What is certain is that had they had the gospel preached to them, and accepted it, and enjoyed the aid of the Church and the sacraments throughout their lives, they would have had much more efficacious aids to virtue, weapons against vice, and would have fully cooperated with God's will by doing so. If they didn't become a Catholic, only God can say whether their reasons were justifiable, (ignorance of the existence of the church, ignorance of the teachings of the church, bad example by Catholics who should have known differently, etc.) and only God can choose whether to extend to them the sanctifying grace to save their soul. We don't know, and can't know, and must therefore prudently assume that in most or all of these cases, they are probably damned. However we can hope, in God's mercy, for their salvation, even if we cannot have "good hope." We know that God loves us all, individually, and wills our salvation, that He gives every human soul the graces necessary to save their soul, and that if a soul is damned, it is due to that soul's own selfish will, in the end. What, precisely, the graces are that God gives to a pagan in the deepest depths of the Congo, or a schismatic in a little town somewhere on the Volga, are known only to Him.
However, WE know that the ordinary means that God wills to give grace to mankind is via baptism and the Church, and that it is therefore our duty to help God in his great work of redemption, by doing our part to be good Catholics, and to spread the gospel, attempting to make everyone in the world a Catholic.
-
So the Sacraments and the Church are the "ordinary means" of salvation and the Church offers a lot of helps to salvation, making it easier. That's not what Catholic dogma teaches. Besides, if morals are subjective, then fornication is not against natural law and so pagans who fornicate on a regular basis do so without mortal sin while Catholics could go to hell after one sin? Prots who don't think they have a strict obligation to attend church services on Sunday commit no sin but Catholics who sleep in one time from Mass are subject to hellfire? So much for being a "help" to salvation.
-
Catholic dogmas bind us, and are given to us for our own guidance on the straight and narrow path. They do not bind God. Practically speaking it is impossible to be saved without the aid of the sacraments. Theoretically speaking? Well, that's a matter for theologians more learned than myself, and arguments can be adduced on both sides. It really doesn't matter one whit rather a pagan "can" be saved or "can't," all we need to know is that it's obligatory and absolutely necessary for us to try to make him a Catholic. If we succeed? Good. If we fail, either because we never reached him or we presented the faith badly? Only God knows. But we certainly can't say he's likely to be saved. Nor can we say that it is de fide that he is in Hell for eternity, for even though we know Hell exists and people go there, we can't even say for certainty, private revelations aside, that Judas is there, let alone some infidel from Bangladesh.
-
Nor can we say that it is de fide that he is in Hell for eternity, for even though we know Hell exists and people go there, we can't even say for certainty, private revelations aside, that Judas is there, let alone some infidel from Bangladesh.
I have to disagree with the part about Judas. According to scripture, Jesus himself predicted Judas' damnation. From Matthew chapter 26:
[21] And whilst they were eating, he said: Amen I say to you, that one of you is about to betray me. [22] And they being very much troubled, began every one to say: Is it I, Lord? [23] But he answering, said: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, he shall betray me. [24] The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born.
The only way that "it were better for him, if that man had not been born" was if he would be damned to hell.
-
I took the question to be about natural virtues. God wrote those on the hearts of all men. So I would think there are a fair number who practice natural virtue.
-
If they didn't become a Catholic, only God can say whether their reasons were justifiable, (ignorance of the existence of the church, ignorance of the teachings of the church, bad example by Catholics who should have known differently, etc.) and only God can choose whether to extend to them the sanctifying grace to save their soul.
Are you aware that what you have written goes against the dogmatic Athanasian Creed, which is ancient and believed by all the Fathers of the Church, St. Thomas and all the saints? Ignorance of the existence of the church, ignorance of the teachings of the church, bad example by Catholics who should have known differently, have been around since the beginning and have been directly rejected as "excuses" for salvation by the Church Fathers and Saints since the beginning.
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
[/b] 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
-
If they didn't become a Catholic, only God can say whether their reasons were justifiable, (ignorance of the existence of the church, ignorance of the teachings of the church, bad example by Catholics who should have known differently, etc.) and only God can choose whether to extend to them the sanctifying grace to save their soul.
Are you aware that what you have written goes against the dogmatic Athanasian Creed, which is ancient and believed by all the Fathers of the Church, St. Thomas and all the saints? Ignorance of the existence of the church, ignorance of the teachings of the church, bad example by Catholics who should have known differently, have been around since the beginning and have been directly rejected as "excuses" for salvation by the Church Fathers and Saints since the beginning.
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
[/b] 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
(Sarcasm Alert!) I hope Pius IX didn't contradict the Creed.
It is known to Us and to you that those who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, and who, carefully observing the natural law and its precepts which God has inscribed in the hearts of all, and who, being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, through the working of the divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God, who clearly sees, inspects and knows the minds, the intentions, the thoughts and the habits of all, will, by reason of His supreme goodness and kindness, never allow anyone who has not the guilt of willful sin to be punished by eternal sufferings. Pius IX
-
Do you ever read what Pope Pius IX taught immediately before and after the text you keep quoting to support salvation outside the Church? I mean you can't possibly miss it because your quote is sandwiched right in-between two explicit affirmations of the EENS dogma. The sentence you keep quoting as you do can be used to deny the dogma only if it is lifted out of its context between these two affirmations, and deliberately misunderstood or mistranslated, as you constantly do.
If you read the whole thing, you will not be able to deny the EENS dogma as you do now by taking it out of context - as you constantly do. If you sincerely want to understand it in context, you need to post the whole part.
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.
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior." The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;" "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;" "He who does not believe will be condemned;" "He who does not believe is already condemned;" "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;" the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."
-
Do you ever read what Pope Pius IX taught immediately before and after the text you keep quoting to support salvation outside the Church? I mean you can't possibly miss it because your quote is sandwiched right in-between two explicit affirmations of the EENS dogma. The sentence you keep quoting as you do can be used to deny the dogma only if it is lifted out of its context between these two affirmations, and deliberately misunderstood or mistranslated, as you constantly do.
If you read the whole thing, you will not be able to deny the EENS dogma as you do now by taking it out of context - as you constantly do. If you sincerely want to understand it in context, you need to post the whole part.
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.
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior." The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;" "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;" "He who does not believe will be condemned;" "He who does not believe is already condemned;" "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;" the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."
...And my friend, if you yourself read it, with the mind of the Church, you would understand that you cannot selectively ignore the parts of a docuмent or teaching that you do not like. Pius IX does not contradict himself, he rather re-echoes the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. God commands all of us to be Catholic. We must be Catholic if we are to be saved. But God is not bound by the laws he gives to man (EENS) and can bestow grace where He will, so that if He wills to save someone who is not outwardly Catholic, He certainly can do so -and His mercy might compel Him to, when there is a certain pagan who through natural virtue has responded to the graces which God has sent him, but who, through the fault of Catholics, has not been shown the Catholic religion.
Pius addresses the Catholics: "remember guys, you have to stay Catholic to be saved, no becoming a member of the local Lutheran sect for political advancement" and then for the pedantic, adds the caveat about Invincible Ignorance and virtue, by way of contrast. It can apply to the Jungle Dweller but can't possibly be used as an excuse not to practice their religion, by the knowledgeable 19th century Westerners, who knew perfectly well thanks to the overtly religious culture they was raised in, what the Church was, what she taught, and what she stood for. Then Pius addresses the Protestants, Liberals, and apathetic indifferentists: "You all live in Europe, are able to read my letter, remember that you know perfectly well what the Catholic Church has always taught, so renounce your errors, your pride and bad-faith, and become Catholic or you will certainly not be saved."
This is really all that need be said on the subject. If the early Fathers seem more "simple and straightforward," "staunch," "austere," however you want to put it, it is not because "liberals have softened the doctrine since the high Middle Ages," (liberals have softened the doctrine, but this has taken place in the mid-20th century to today, not in the 19th) but because all their writings assume the context of a completely Christianized world, so they did not need to verbalize apparent "exceptions" about "invincible ignorance," etc. They write for the Catholic, and for a literate world that knew Christ. If a man knew Latin or Greek, or knew people who knew these languages, then he knew the Church and therefore needed to be reminded that his salvation depended on being a Christian. It's hard for us to understand this today, but in, let's say, A.D. 400, until the 1400s when seafaring began to open new lands, it was simply impossible to conceive of a wider world of many continents and nation states, as we do now. It was a long journey of days between cities that we can now zip between in our cars in 20 minutes. It could take months to travel from Italy into France. Ireland was a mysterious land on the very edge of the world. Most people never in their entire lives travelled more than 20 miles from their birthplace. The Sahara and the empty steppes of Central Asia, and the frozen wastelands of the north, meant that beyond the Mediterranean region of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East (as we now call it, with our knowledge of China, India, etc. Back then it was just "the east") comprised the whole world, and anything beyond that was merely legends, wild stories, and fables. In this context, it makes perfect sense that most of the earlier statements (e.g. the Athanasian Creed) don't become 20 page theological treatises explaining every apparent "exception" -that's not their purpose. The purpose of that creed is to contradict those who think that the Trinity is false, and secondly, for our purposes, to contradict those who think that a man has just as much chance of enjoying paradise after death if he worships Apollo or Sol Invictus, or follows the false teaching of a heretic like Arius.
-
BeatusRusticus, in all charity, your post just reeks modernism.
...And my friend, if you yourself read it, with the mind of the Church, you would understand that you cannot selectively ignore the parts of a docuмent or teaching that you do not like. Pius IX does not contradict himself, he rather re-echoes the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. God commands all of us to be Catholic. We must be Catholic if we are to be saved. But God is not bound by the laws he gives to man (EENS) and can bestow grace where He will, so that if He wills to save someone who is not outwardly Catholic, He certainly can do so -and His mercy might compel Him to, when there is a certain pagan who through natural virtue has responded to the graces which God has sent him, but who, through the fault of Catholics, has not been shown the Catholic religion.
Of course Pope Pius IX does not contradict himself. His stamements on invincible ignorance understood in context and in light of Catholic dogma mean that these invincibly ignorant people who strive to live upright life can receive graces from God to find the Catholic faith, be converted and saved. That does not mean that they can be saved in the state of invincible ignorance.
And again, just like many Cushingites, you introduce the notion that someone "could not become Catholic faith becaue he has not been shown Catholic religion". So apparently God is bound by efforts of missionaries and can't provide faith to His elect in other ways whenever He pleases. This is denial of God's providence.
This is really all that need be said on the subject. If the early Fathers seem more "simple and straightforward," "staunch," "austere," however you want to put it, it is not because "liberals have softened the doctrine since the high Middle Ages," (liberals have softened the doctrine, but this has taken place in the mid-20th century to today, not in the 19th) but because all their writings assume the context of a completely Christianized world, so they did not need to verbalize apparent "exceptions" about "invincible ignorance," etc. They write for the Catholic, and for a literate world that knew Christ. If a man knew Latin or Greek, or knew people who knew these languages, then he knew the Church and therefore needed to be reminded that his salvation depended on being a Christian. It's hard for us to understand this today, but in, let's say, A.D. 400, until the 1400s when seafaring began to open new lands, it was simply impossible to conceive of a wider world of many continents and nation states, as we do now. It was a long journey of days between cities that we can now zip between in our cars in 20 minutes. It could take months to travel from Italy into France. Ireland was a mysterious land on the very edge of the world. Most people never in their entire lives travelled more than 20 miles from their birthplace. The Sahara and the empty steppes of Central Asia, and the frozen wastelands of the north, meant that beyond the Mediterranean region of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East (as we now call it, with our knowledge of China, India, etc. Back then it was just "the east") comprised the whole world, and anything beyond that was merely legends, wild stories, and fables.
Perfect and truly modernist example of explaining the dogma away through historical criticism. Apparently the dogma does not mean what it says, we need to know all historical circuмstances to understand what it actually means (which turn out to be opposite to what the dogmatic pronouncements actually say). People use the same methodology to explain away Unam Sanctam, saying that Pope Boniface VIII wrote that against the French king to discipline him and that thus it cannot be treated as infallible statement binding on all Christians till the end of time.
The understanding of Catholic dogma cannot change because we discovered new lands with millions of pagans, so that suddenly an alternative way of salvation ("invincible ignorance" etc.) has to be invented for them. You articulate the heresy condemned by Vatican I - the meaning of the dogmas cannot change and they have to be understood as the Church understood them when they were defined. According to you, the meaning Cantate Domino, which teaches that all who die as pagans go to hell, has changed because of geographical discoveries etc.
In this context, it makes perfect sense that most of the earlier statements (e.g. the Athanasian Creed) don't become 20 page theological treatises explaining every apparent "exception" -that's not their purpose. The purpose of that creed is to contradict those who think that the Trinity is false, and secondly, for our purposes, to contradict those who think that a man has just as much chance of enjoying paradise after death if he worships Apollo or Sol Invictus, or follows the false teaching of a heretic like Arius.
More modernism. The Athanasian Creed says that those without the Catholic faith without a doubt shall perish in eternity. No exceptions are even hinted at. According to you, what it actually means is "it is best to hold the Catholic faith, but it is possible to be saved without it under certain circuмstances" - directly opposite of what the Athanasian Creed says.
-
Of course Pope Pius IX does not contradict himself. His stamements on invincible ignorance understood in context and in light of Catholic dogma mean that these invincibly ignorant people who strive to live upright life can receive graces from God to find the Catholic faith, be converted and saved. That does not mean that they can be saved in the state of invincible ignorance.
If there is a native on a desert island, whom God knows is willing to receive the message of Christ, God will get him a missionary, just as He got Philip to the eunuch. "If no missionary comes, it will be because God sees no missionary would be received, were he to come. The native will not be to blame morally and will never be punished in Hell for having rejected the Faith, because he did not, in fact, do so. It was only God Who knew he would. But he also will never receive the Beatific Vision because he neither had the Faith nor was baptized. And this is God's justice"
If the Natural Law was sufficient for salvation, then, as St. Paul says, Christ died in vain.
-
"Historical criticism," as you term it, has nothing at all to do with the "explaining away of doctrine." Rather, anyone with common sense can see that the context of time and author will inevitably color any statement. This is what the Church takes care of for us. She knows the Faith, and she applies the relevant principles to teach all men the truths necessary to save their souls. Saint Augustine, Saint Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Thomas, St. Ignatius of Loyola, all wrote to specific audiences, and their statements were colored by their context. It's the responsibility of the Church in every age, to teach us the faith, teach us to avoid heresy, and address the troubling questions of the times, as in every age the Devil will throw up some controversy to try to draw souls from the Church by attacking one doctrine or the other.
In the fourth century it was Arianism, in the fourteenth, monarchical usurpation of Church rights, in the sixteenth, Protestantism, in the nineteenth, Religious Indifferentism. Now, apropos to this discussion, there are two current errors: religious indifferentism has still not been crushed, as it is being enthusiastically upheld by secular governments, and has in practice morphed into Agnosticism. And on the other hand there is a small but vocal group of persons who, though intending to uphold the Church's teaching, in practice scandalize many souls by their wresting of every docuмent to try to prove that any soul who has not been baptized with water is surely and absolutely going to Hell, and with them, must go very many saints, popes, and martyrs, who committed monstrous crimes of heresy by daring to suggest that God is not bound by the rules He sets forth for man.
This over-literal selective interpretation flies in the face of common sense and reality. What if the only "exposure" an infidel had to the faith was the warped gospel taught by some happy-clappy charismatic who believes that the Catholic religion consists of barking like a dog and talking about Jesus' love ad nauseam? Or, to sharpen my point a bit more, we all know the crazy lady at Mass who sprinkles holy water and blessed salt everywhere, wears a half dozen medals, and tells you that you will go to Hell if you aren't a Catholic. She's not wrong, and there is nothing wrong with sacramentals, but if she were the only exposure a pagan ever had to the faith, you might understand that he would mentally say "these Catholics are crazy, I think in my heart that my Buddhist religion is a bit silly and I can feel there's something amiss, but I'm quite sure Catholicism isn't the answer, maybe this pious seeming imam who talks about Mohammed and peace, has better answers?" Or what if we are speaking of Saint Appolonia, who heard the gospel, accepted it, and was martyred before she was given the grace of a water baptism?
Of course, the Feeneyite will probably tell me that God's providence takes care of this problem, because if He put a pagan where the only gospel he would hear is that of Crazy Woman or Fr. Happy, then that pagan was predestined to be damned, and it is God's mercy that put him where he could never hear the faith and embrace it, instead of putting him into, say, a Catholic Traditionalist family where he could receive the faith in toto, reject it, and suffer even more in Hell because of it. (And Saint Appolonia wasn't a real Saint, and the Church has just erred in saying she is, for the last 1700 years. Or maybe she was given an "invisible water baptism" by angels, the moment before she died.)
It may be that this is correct, but it is not, to be sure, de fide doctrine on providence and justification, which is justly called a mystery (that intangible but very real divide, somewhere, between grace and free will, God's mercy, and God's justice.) And this is the crux of the matter, for me. If the saints and popes treat this topic with the greatest reverence and caution, then who are we, as layfolk, to pronounce assuredly, calling one another "Feeneyites" and "Cushingites" and insisting that anyone who doesn't accept our particular understanding of a very convoluted subject in a very confused time, is a pertinacious heretic? This attitude lacks charity, and smacks of pride, because it results in an attitude of "I and the two dozen other people in my online circle of friends, and a handful of clergy, are the only real Catholics, and everyone else is best friends with the devil, and probably has horns and a tail." What kind of attitude is that? The question of the thread was "Can pagans be virtuous?" Not "what do you think of BOD and BOB."
-
So the Sacraments and the Church are the "ordinary means" of salvation and the Church offers a lot of helps to salvation, making it easier. That's not what Catholic dogma teaches. Besides, if morals are subjective, then fornication is not against natural law and so pagans who fornicate on a regular basis do so without mortal sin while Catholics could go to hell after one sin? Prots who don't think they have a strict obligation to attend church services on Sunday commit no sin but Catholics who sleep in one time from Mass are subject to hellfire? So much for being a "help" to salvation.
Apply this picture to every single doctrine and moral teaching constituting the Catholic religion. When you make everything subjective, at the expense of the objective truth revealed by God, then no dogma of the Faith is ever safe....nothing else matters.
If EENS (as written) does not matter, then absolutely nothing in Catholicism really does.
-
"Historical criticism," as you term it, has nothing at all to do with the "explaining away of doctrine." Rather, anyone with common sense can see that the context of time and author will inevitably color any statement. This is what the Church takes care of for us. She knows the Faith, and she applies the relevant principles to teach all men the truths necessary to save their souls. Saint Augustine, Saint Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Thomas, St. Ignatius of Loyola, all wrote to specific audiences, and their statements were colored by their context. It's the responsibility of the Church in every age, to teach us the faith, teach us to avoid heresy, and address the troubling questions of the times, as in every age the Devil will throw up some controversy to try to draw souls from the Church by attacking one doctrine or the other.
This is typical modernist way of speaking. Dogma is not "written to specific audiences" and its definition is not "colored by their context" - Catholic dogmas are an object of Divine and Catholic faith and must be understood as the Church defined them. You articulate the modernist heresy which was explicitly condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi, according to which dogmas are not trues fallen from heaven, but interpretations which need to be elaborated upon to understand its true meaning.
In other words, according to you the EENS dogma is not a truth fallen from Heaven announcing that all who die as non-Catholic cannot be saved (Athanasian Creed, Cantate Domino), but kind of theological statement which needs to be properly interpreted in its historical context. This is totally heretical.
This over-literal selective interpretation flies in the face of common sense and reality.
So now dogma is understood through "common sense" (whatever one thinks is "commonly sensible"), not through its dogmatic definition - more modernism.
By the way, what is "over-literal" in affirming that anyone who dies without the Catholic faith will without a doubt perish in eternity, as the Athanasian Creed explicitly states?
What if the only "exposure" an infidel had to the faith was the warped gospel taught by some happy-clappy charismatic who believes that the Catholic religion consists of barking like a dog and talking about Jesus' love ad nauseam? Or, to sharpen my point a bit more, we all know the crazy lady at Mass who sprinkles holy water and blessed salt everywhere, wears a half dozen medals, and tells you that you will go to Hell if you aren't a Catholic. She's not wrong, and there is nothing wrong with sacramentals, but if she were the only exposure a pagan ever had to the faith, you might understand that he would mentally say "these Catholics are crazy, I think in my heart that my Buddhist religion is a bit silly and I can feel there's something amiss, but I'm quite sure Catholicism isn't the answer, maybe this pious seeming imam who talks about Mohammed and peace, has better answers?" Or what if we are speaking of Saint Appolonia, who heard the gospel, accepted it, and was martyred before she was given the grace of a water baptism?
Right, so according to you God cannot provide faith to people who sincerely seek for truth, He depends upon the efforts of Catholic missionaries and is bound by it.
Of course you bring up the issue of BoD - but Thomistic BoD (for those with explicit faith in Jesus Christ, which Saint Apolonia had) is something entirely different than the Cushingite heresy of salvation without faith in Christ.
Of course, the Feeneyite will probably tell me that God's providence takes care of this problem, because if He put a pagan where the only gospel he would hear is that of Crazy Woman or Fr. Happy, then that pagan was predestined to be damned, and it is God's mercy that put him where he could never hear the faith and embrace it, instead of putting him into, say, a Catholic Traditionalist family where he could receive the faith in toto, reject it, and suffer even more in Hell because of it. (And Saint Appolonia wasn't a real Saint, and the Church has just erred in saying she is, for the last 1700 years. Or maybe she was given an "invisible water baptism" by angels, the moment before she died.)
Yes, God's providence never fails. If one was put in a position where he or she never hears the Gospel it means they would have rejected it anyway. The notion that a person of good will, who sincerely seeks God cannot arrive to the Catholic faith is direct denial of God's providence. And yes, not all people are predestined to eternal life, there are reprobates as well. This is by no means denial of universal salvific will of God.
It may be that this is correct, but it is not, to be sure, de fide doctrine on providence and justification, which is justly called a mystery (that intangible but very real divide, somewhere, between grace and free will, God's mercy, and God's justice.) And this is the crux of the matter, for me. If the saints and popes treat this topic with the greatest reverence and caution, then who are we, as layfolk, to pronounce assuredly, calling one another "Feeneyites" and "Cushingites" and insisting that anyone who doesn't accept our particular understanding of a very convoluted subject in a very confused time, is a pertinacious heretic? This attitude lacks charity, and smacks of pride, because it results in an attitude of "I and the two dozen other people in my online circle of friends, and a handful of clergy, are the only real Catholics, and everyone else is best friends with the devil, and probably has horns and a tail." What kind of attitude is that? The question of the thread was "Can pagans be virtuous?" Not "what do you think of BOD and BOB."
No, its just the difference between those who believe the dogma as it was defined (Athanasian Creed, Cantate Domino, Unam Sanctam), and those who consider it a theological interpretation for further elaboration and use modernist means of explaining it away into meaning something completely different than the dogmatic statements say. That is all there is to it. EENS is the only dogma the world cannot live with, which is visible even among Traditional Catholics.
-
in practice scandalize many souls by their wresting of every docuмent to try to prove that any soul who has not been baptized with water is surely and absolutely going to Hell, and with them, must go very many saints, popes, and martyrs, who committed monstrous crimes of heresy by daring to suggest that God is not bound by the rules He sets forth for man.
Well-stated. Are you prepared to be flogged and chastised and have words put in your mouth and be told you are a Cushingite and heretic, mischaracterised, and lied about? Keep trying to help them as if they are rational human beings without caving in to their beliefs for years and this what will happen. The will try to beat you down until you quite interrupting their fantasy.
-
So the Sacraments and the Church are the "ordinary means" of salvation and the Church offers a lot of helps to salvation, making it easier. That's not what Catholic dogma teaches. Besides, if morals are subjective, then fornication is not against natural law and so pagans who fornicate on a regular basis do so without mortal sin while Catholics could go to hell after one sin? Prots who don't think they have a strict obligation to attend church services on Sunday commit no sin but Catholics who sleep in one time from Mass are subject to hellfire? So much for being a "help" to salvation.
Apply this picture to every single doctrine and moral teaching constituting the Catholic religion. When you make everything subjective, at the expense of the objective truth revealed by God, then no dogma of the Faith is ever safe....nothing else matters.
If EENS (as written) does not matter, then absolutely nothing in Catholicism really does.
"From those to whom much is given, much is expected." A pagan might not be fornicating when he has relations with his half a dozen wives, because he sees it as perfectly normal. When he's baptized, he's supposed to keep the first one he married, his true wife. Or, says the Holy Office, if he can't remember which one he married first, he can just keep his favorite. Obviously God has mercy on human weakness.
Yes, his life got a lot harder when he became a Catholic. He has to live by restrictions on his actions, in accordance with natural and divine law, some of which he now must regard as serious things, when before he thought nothing of them. But his Catholicism now allows him something he never had before, a life of sactifying grace. And not only a life of grace, but a fair shot at eternal salvation, which as a pagan may have been theoretically possible through God's grace, but how likely? Not very.
It bears pointing out, incidentally, that everyone who dies justified is a Catholic. The only question is whether they were a visible, exterior member of the Church Militant on Earth, or if they only become a member of the Church Suffering or Triumphant in Purgatory or Heaven. It's purely academic to us whether God chooses to extend to them his sanctifying grace by the means of a missionary, or the local church, or a bilocating Saint, or a true love of God and a repugnance for sin, on their deathbed. But we know that God has ordered us to go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. God wills us, as members of the Church militant, to be the ordinary ministers of his grace to the world. But if we fail in our duty, being human, and He must intervene, who can say how His providence structures it?
-
in practice scandalize many souls by their wresting of every docuмent to try to prove that any soul who has not been baptized with water is surely and absolutely going to Hell, and with them, must go very many saints, popes, and martyrs, who committed monstrous crimes of heresy by daring to suggest that God is not bound by the rules He sets forth for man.
Well-stated. Are you prepared to be flogged and chastised and have words put in your mouth and be told you are a Cushingite and heretic, mischaracterised, and lied about? Keep trying to help them as if they are rational human beings without caving in to their beliefs for years and this what will happen. The will try to beat you down until you quite interrupting their fantasy.
More straw man argumentation. It is not about water baptism - Thomistic Baptism of Desire is Catholic and absolutely fine. What you really promote is not salvation through Thomistic BoD, but salvation without faith in Incarnation and the Trinity, which is a direct denial of Athanasian Creed and Cantate Domino. No Saint taught that - neither St. Thomas, nor St. Alphonsus, so don't hide behind their statements on Thomistic BoD to promote the Cushingite heresy of salvation without faith in Christ.
-
in practice scandalize many souls by their wresting of every docuмent to try to prove that any soul who has not been baptized with water is surely and absolutely going to Hell, and with them, must go very many saints, popes, and martyrs, who committed monstrous crimes of heresy by daring to suggest that God is not bound by the rules He sets forth for man.
Well-stated. Are you prepared to be flogged and chastised and have words put in your mouth and be told you are a Cushingite and heretic, mischaracterised, and lied about? Keep trying to help them as if they are rational human beings without caving in to their beliefs for years and this what will happen. The will try to beat you down until you quite interrupting their fantasy.
More straw man argumentation. It is not about water baptism - Thomistic Baptism of Desire is Catholic and absolutely fine. What you really promote is not salvation through Thomistic BoD, but salvation without faith in Incarnation and the Trinity, which is a direct denial of Athanasian Creed and Cantate Domino. No Saint taught that - neither St. Thomas, nor St. Alphonsus, so don't hide behind their statements on Thomistic BoD to promote the Cushingite heresy of salvation without faith in Christ.
I do not promote that. I have gone into great detail on the subject. But as long as you claim a "Thomistic BOD" I will share what he actually taught on the issue:
When addressing the issue of Baptism of Desire Saint Thomas Aquinas says:
In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.
The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here. Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.
Does this mean he denied the Athanasian Creed.
-
in practice scandalize many souls by their wresting of every docuмent to try to prove that any soul who has not been baptized with water is surely and absolutely going to Hell, and with them, must go very many saints, popes, and martyrs, who committed monstrous crimes of heresy by daring to suggest that God is not bound by the rules He sets forth for man.
Well-stated. Are you prepared to be flogged and chastised and have words put in your mouth and be told you are a Cushingite and heretic, mischaracterised, and lied about? Keep trying to help them as if they are rational human beings without caving in to their beliefs for years and this what will happen. The will try to beat you down until you quite interrupting their fantasy.
More straw man argumentation. It is not about water baptism - Thomistic Baptism of Desire is Catholic and absolutely fine. What you really promote is not salvation through Thomistic BoD, but salvation without faith in Incarnation and the Trinity, which is a direct denial of Athanasian Creed and Cantate Domino. No Saint taught that - neither St. Thomas, nor St. Alphonsus, so don't hide behind their statements on Thomistic BoD to promote the Cushingite heresy of salvation without faith in Christ.
This is the question, indeed. Whether a man can be saved without explicitly believing in the formulated doctrines of the Church. Suffice it to say, this is a question that has been debated among men wiser than you and I for a long, long time. If you read doctrinal books from the turn of the century, you can find summaries of "so and so inclines to the strict position," "so and so inclines to the position that at the least they must accept the Trinity and the Incarnation," "so and so inclines to the position that a sincere love of the Creator and a hatred of sin suffices" etc. If these men could treat their opponents who disagreed with them as Catholics, and examine the question dispassionately as a theological one, then it behooves us today to do the same. After all, there are far fewer good Catholics today than a century ago, and it accomplishes nothing to set oneself up as pope and final interpreter of all Church teaching.
-
in practice scandalize many souls by their wresting of every docuмent to try to prove that any soul who has not been baptized with water is surely and absolutely going to Hell, and with them, must go very many saints, popes, and martyrs, who committed monstrous crimes of heresy by daring to suggest that God is not bound by the rules He sets forth for man.
Well-stated. Are you prepared to be flogged and chastised and have words put in your mouth and be told you are a Cushingite and heretic, mischaracterised, and lied about? Keep trying to help them as if they are rational human beings without caving in to their beliefs for years and this what will happen. The will try to beat you down until you quite interrupting their fantasy.
More straw man argumentation. It is not about water baptism - Thomistic Baptism of Desire is Catholic and absolutely fine. What you really promote is not salvation through Thomistic BoD, but salvation without faith in Incarnation and the Trinity, which is a direct denial of Athanasian Creed and Cantate Domino. No Saint taught that - neither St. Thomas, nor St. Alphonsus, so don't hide behind their statements on Thomistic BoD to promote the Cushingite heresy of salvation without faith in Christ.
This is the question, indeed. Whether a man can be saved without explicitly believing in the formulated doctrines of the Church. Suffice it to say, this is a question that has been debated among men wiser than you and I for a long, long time. If you read doctrinal books from the turn of the century, you can find summaries of "so and so inclines to the strict position," "so and so inclines to the position that at the least they must accept the Trinity and the Incarnation," "so and so inclines to the position that a sincere love of the Creator and a hatred of sin suffices" etc. If these men could treat their opponents who disagreed with them as Catholics, and examine the question dispassionately as a theological one, then it behooves us today to do the same. After all, there are far fewer good Catholics today than a century ago, and it accomplishes nothing to set oneself up as pope and final interpreter of all Church teaching.
You are an intelligent, well-reasoned and factually correct man. But this will not wash with those you are dealing with.
The fact that supernatural Faith and perfect charity is intrinsically necessary for salvation is not good enough for them. They take that and claim that this means the devil and all his minions are saved. It is incredible.
Nowhere do we teach that false sects save. Or that "false sects are saved" as one accused me of recently, or that most in then are saved, or even can be.
The Church simply teaches that some non-members can be saved within the Church. I merely accept it. They refuse to because of varying things such as pride, blindness and ignorance or some combination of the above. Will they be judged on their ignorance as harshly as they judge others? If so they are definitely going to the Hell they send everyone else to. I speak facetiously to make a point of course.
-
If you read doctrinal books from the turn of the century, you can find summaries of "so and so inclines to the strict position," "so and so inclines to the position that at the least they must accept the Trinity and the Incarnation," "so and so inclines to the position that a sincere love of the Creator and a hatred of sin suffices" etc.
That is true, and that is exactly what paved the way to Vatican II revolution - gradual spread of the denial of absolute necessity of faith in Christ and the Incarnation and the denial of necessity of being in the Catholic Church for salvation. Watering down the dogma began long before Vatican II, the Council was merely the formal expression of it. If you can't see the connection between Suprema Haec Sacra and teachings of theologians on EENS from before Vatican II and the heretical Vatican II ecclesiology, then you don't understand the origins and nature of the crisis in the Church which we experience.
The matter has been settled with the Athanasian Creed and Cantate Domino - nobody can be saved without believing in essential mysteries of the Catholic faith, period.
The fact that supernatural Faith and perfect charity is intrinsically necessary for salvation is not good enough for them.
That's good enough for us, the problem is that you redefine and deny the requirements for Supernatural Faith which are infallibly taught in the Athanasian Creed - that is, faith in Incarnation and the Trinity.
The Church simply teaches that some non-members can be saved within the Church. I merely accept it.
Suprema Haec Sacra and some theologians teach it, not the Church.
-
When addressing the issue of Baptism of Desire Saint Thomas Aquinas says:
In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.
The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here. Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.
-
When addressing the issue of Baptism of Desire Saint Thomas Aquinas says:
In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.
The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here. Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.
I think your quote from St. Thomas may mislead some to believe that St. Thomas thought one could be saved without believing in the Trinity and the Incarnation. He may not mention it here, but I have read other quotes from St. Thomas where he says what one must believe to be saved and he says that one must believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation to be saved.
-
When addressing the issue of Baptism of Desire Saint Thomas Aquinas says:
In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.
The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here. Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.
The absolute necessity of believing in Chrust and the Trinity is infallibly taught in the Athanasian Creed. Deal with it.
As to St. Thomas, I have already refuted you on this - he teaches necessity of faith in Christ and the Trinity elsewhere, thus when speaking about BoD and "believing in God", by God he means the Trinity and Incarnation, otherwise he would contradict himself.
-
When addressing the issue of Baptism of Desire Saint Thomas Aquinas says:
In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.
The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here. Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.
I think your quote from St. Thomas may mislead some to believe that St. Thomas thought one could be saved without believing in the Trinity and the Incarnation. He may not mention it here, but I have read other quotes from St. Thomas where he says what one must believe to be saved and he says that one must believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation to be saved.
But this must be understood in context regarding the particular issue he is directly addressing. In this case he is addressing BOD. It coincides with what Pius IX taught and Pius XII in M.C. and the authoritative letter approved by same which all good Catholics give their ascent.
This issue itself has not be definitively settled. Supernatural Faith is what is essential. It has not been settled with what necessity and under what circuмstances belief in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is necessary.
I have said before but people ignore, I'm inclined to believe all four are necessary but I do not insist on it because I have not seen that the Church has when addressing the issue of BOD.
This is why a theologian as revered and learned as Monsignor Fenton, who was on the Catholic side when fighting for truth on the V2 commission and was also on the "losing" side admitted as much. He knows what the creed taught, and Trent taught and everything else. He was not liber inventing new truths. Neither was Pius IX or Pius XII for that matter. We must accept what they taught in their official capacity.
Are babies saved without explicit Faith in the Trinity and Incarnation? Do they think upon these mysteries. Baptized babies have supernatural Faith yet can we call them culpably ignorant of the mysteries? Are they damned by their inculpable ignorance?
The over-reactors to the heresy of universal salvation have outsmarted themselves. Like the protestants, they trust their interpretation of everything over that of EVERYONE else no matter how authoritative and qualified they are.
Again I think all four beliefs are necessary. I do not teach they are not but merely admit that it has not be settled as to whether it is intrinsically necessary or not under every circuмstance or not. Supernatural Faith is essential. We should all agree. What constitutes the bare minimum for supernatural Faith to be possible is not up to us on this forum. We submit to the Church and impose no more on others than she does, and no less.
-
But this must be understood in context regarding the particular issue he is directly addressing.
Here he puts his hubris on display, Matto. He'll never admit he's wrong, not even on the slightest point. So explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for supernatural faith but not for Baptism of Desire. In other words, according to LoT, supernatural faith is not required for Baptism of Desire. This man needs mental and spiritual help. I'm glad that this guy keeps posting about BoD; he's the best advertisement for how badly flawed the position is. I've seen more and more people understand the EENS problem the longer this guy posts ... including comments about how it's absurd for him to be a sedevacantist when he essentially holds to V2 ecclesiology (from which all V2 errors derive). It's obvious to any sentient being that he is not intellectually honest in the least bit.
LoT discredits the positions he thinks he's defending.
-
If they didn't become a Catholic, only God can say whether their reasons were justifiable, (ignorance of the existence of the church, ignorance of the teachings of the church, bad example by Catholics who should have known differently, etc.) and only God can choose whether to extend to them the sanctifying grace to save their soul.
Are you aware that what you have written goes against the dogmatic Athanasian Creed, which is ancient and believed by all the Fathers of the Church, St. Thomas and all the saints? Ignorance of the existence of the church, ignorance of the teachings of the church, bad example by Catholics who should have known differently, have been around since the beginning and have been directly rejected as "excuses" for salvation by the Church Fathers and Saints since the beginning.
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
[/b] 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
-
If they didn't become a Catholic, only God can say whether their reasons were justifiable, (ignorance of the existence of the church, ignorance of the teachings of the church, bad example by Catholics who should have known differently, etc.) and only God can choose whether to extend to them the sanctifying grace to save their soul.
Are you aware that what you have written goes against the dogmatic Athanasian Creed, which is ancient and believed by all the Fathers of the Church, St. Thomas and all the saints? Ignorance of the existence of the church, ignorance of the teachings of the church, bad example by Catholics who should have known differently, have been around since the beginning and have been directly rejected as "excuses" for salvation by the Church Fathers and Saints since the beginning.
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
[/b] 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
So, after much writing by him, we find yet another dogma refiner who denies the ancient dogmatic Athanasian Creed and teaches that people can be saved without belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity. This one though sounds like he accepts Vatican II which would at least make sense.
-
Vatican II
World News
Approval for Zairian rite was a long time coming, says Congolese cardinal
By Mark Pattison • Catholic News Service • Posted August 10, 2016
WASHINGTON (CNS) — In 1969, four years after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, the bishops of the Democratic Republic of the Congo petitioned the Vatican for permission to use a new rite that spoke to the needs of Catholics in the sub-Saharan African nation.
Nineteen years and two popes later, that permission was granted. By 1988, though, the country’s name had been changed to Zaire, so the liturgical rite became known as the Zairian rite.
Less than a decade later, the country was renamed the Democratic Republic of the Congo, better known simply as Congo. The name of the rite remains, though, said Congolese Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya of Kinshasa, which is the capital of the country.
The biggest changes from the Roman rite known to most Catholics in the West to the Zairian rite are slight changes in order. The penitential rite follows the homily, and is followed by the sign of peace.
“We cannot ask for forgiveness until we have heard the word of God,” Cardinal Monsengwo said in his Aug. 5 address during the Aug. 5-7 Third African National Eucharistic Congress, held in Washington. “We have to know the teaching of the church first.”
The placement of the greeting of peace, he said, harks back to the biblical injunction that, if you are at odds with your brother, you must reconcile with him before bringing your gifts to the altar.
The Mass also features a moderator, an important element in Congolese culture. It also features the invocation of ancestors, which has long been part of African practices. In addition, dancing is common in Masses using the rite. Liturgical dance is far less frequent in the West, and often viewed as an oddity, if not with outright suspicion.
The rite was cited in 1989, a year after its approval, by then-Father George Stallings, a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington, as justification for the creation an African-American rite for black Catholics in the United States. During liturgies he performed before his split with the Roman Catholic Church, Father Stallings — now an archbishop in the church he founded, the African-American Catholic Congregation — incorporated calling on the intercession of ancestors, but none of the other elements of the Zairian rite.
The Zairian rite was not used in any of the Masses celebrated during the Congress, held at The Catholic University of America. The rite is approved for use only for Masses in the dioceses of Congo.
Cardinal Monsengwo was hailed as one of the last living clergy to have helped develop the rite and then advocate for its adoption by the Vatican.
Work on the rite had begun in 1961, before Vatican II had begun. Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, adopted in 1963, called for liturgical adaptation.
The Zairian rite is one of two rites particular to Africa; the Ge’ez rite has been approved for use for Catholics in Ethiopia and Eritrea.
-
BeatusRusticus, in all charity, your post just reeks modernism.
...And my friend, if you yourself read it, with the mind of the Church, you would understand that you cannot selectively ignore the parts of a docuмent or teaching that you do not like. Pius IX does not contradict himself, he rather re-echoes the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. God commands all of us to be Catholic. We must be Catholic if we are to be saved. But God is not bound by the laws he gives to man (EENS) and can bestow grace where He will, so that if He wills to save someone who is not outwardly Catholic, He certainly can do so -and His mercy might compel Him to, when there is a certain pagan who through natural virtue has responded to the graces which God has sent him, but who, through the fault of Catholics, has not been shown the Catholic religion.
Of course Pope Pius IX does not contradict himself. His stamements on invincible ignorance understood in context and in light of Catholic dogma mean that these invincibly ignorant people who strive to live upright life can receive graces from God to find the Catholic faith, be converted and saved. That does not mean that they can be saved in the state of invincible ignorance.
And again, just like many Cushingites, you introduce the notion that someone "could not become Catholic faith becaue he has not been shown Catholic religion". So apparently God is bound by efforts of missionaries and can't provide faith to His elect in other ways whenever He pleases. This is denial of God's providence.
This is really all that need be said on the subject. If the early Fathers seem more "simple and straightforward," "staunch," "austere," however you want to put it, it is not because "liberals have softened the doctrine since the high Middle Ages," (liberals have softened the doctrine, but this has taken place in the mid-20th century to today, not in the 19th) but because all their writings assume the context of a completely Christianized world, so they did not need to verbalize apparent "exceptions" about "invincible ignorance," etc. They write for the Catholic, and for a literate world that knew Christ. If a man knew Latin or Greek, or knew people who knew these languages, then he knew the Church and therefore needed to be reminded that his salvation depended on being a Christian. It's hard for us to understand this today, but in, let's say, A.D. 400, until the 1400s when seafaring began to open new lands, it was simply impossible to conceive of a wider world of many continents and nation states, as we do now. It was a long journey of days between cities that we can now zip between in our cars in 20 minutes. It could take months to travel from Italy into France. Ireland was a mysterious land on the very edge of the world. Most people never in their entire lives travelled more than 20 miles from their birthplace. The Sahara and the empty steppes of Central Asia, and the frozen wastelands of the north, meant that beyond the Mediterranean region of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East (as we now call it, with our knowledge of China, India, etc. Back then it was just "the east") comprised the whole world, and anything beyond that was merely legends, wild stories, and fables.
Perfect and truly modernist example of explaining the dogma away through historical criticism. Apparently the dogma does not mean what it says, we need to know all historical circuмstances to understand what it actually means (which turn out to be opposite to what the dogmatic pronouncements actually say). People use the same methodology to explain away Unam Sanctam, saying that Pope Boniface VIII wrote that against the French king to discipline him and that thus it cannot be treated as infallible statement binding on all Christians till the end of time.
The understanding of Catholic dogma cannot change because we discovered new lands with millions of pagans, so that suddenly an alternative way of salvation ("invincible ignorance" etc.) has to be invented for them. You articulate the heresy condemned by Vatican I - the meaning of the dogmas cannot change and they have to be understood as the Church understood them when they were defined. According to you, the meaning Cantate Domino, which teaches that all who die as pagans go to hell, has changed because of geographical discoveries etc.
In this context, it makes perfect sense that most of the earlier statements (e.g. the Athanasian Creed) don't become 20 page theological treatises explaining every apparent "exception" -that's not their purpose. The purpose of that creed is to contradict those who think that the Trinity is false, and secondly, for our purposes, to contradict those who think that a man has just as much chance of enjoying paradise after death if he worships Apollo or Sol Invictus, or follows the false teaching of a heretic like Arius.
More modernism. The Athanasian Creed says that those without the Catholic faith without a doubt shall perish in eternity. No exceptions are even hinted at. According to you, what it actually means is "it is best to hold the Catholic faith, but it is possible to be saved without it under certain circuмstances" - directly opposite of what the Athanasian Creed says.
:applause: :applause: :applause:
-
Vatican II
World News
Approval for Zairian rite was a long time coming, says Congolese cardinal
By Mark Pattison • Catholic News Service • Posted August 10, 2016
WASHINGTON (CNS) — In 1969, four years after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, the bishops of the Democratic Republic of the Congo petitioned the Vatican for permission to use a new rite that spoke to the needs of Catholics in the sub-Saharan African nation.
Nineteen years and two popes later, that permission was granted. By 1988, though, the country’s name had been changed to Zaire, so the liturgical rite became known as the Zairian rite.
Less than a decade later, the country was renamed the Democratic Republic of the Congo, better known simply as Congo. The name of the rite remains, though, said Congolese Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya of Kinshasa, which is the capital of the country.
The biggest changes from the Roman rite known to most Catholics in the West to the Zairian rite are slight changes in order. The penitential rite follows the homily, and is followed by the sign of peace.
“We cannot ask for forgiveness until we have heard the word of God,” Cardinal Monsengwo said in his Aug. 5 address during the Aug. 5-7 Third African National Eucharistic Congress, held in Washington. “We have to know the teaching of the church first.”
The placement of the greeting of peace, he said, harks back to the biblical injunction that, if you are at odds with your brother, you must reconcile with him before bringing your gifts to the altar.
The Mass also features a moderator, an important element in Congolese culture. It also features the invocation of ancestors, which has long been part of African practices. In addition, dancing is common in Masses using the rite. Liturgical dance is far less frequent in the West, and often viewed as an oddity, if not with outright suspicion.
The rite was cited in 1989, a year after its approval, by then-Father George Stallings, a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington, as justification for the creation an African-American rite for black Catholics in the United States. During liturgies he performed before his split with the Roman Catholic Church, Father Stallings — now an archbishop in the church he founded, the African-American Catholic Congregation — incorporated calling on the intercession of ancestors, but none of the other elements of the Zairian rite.
The Zairian rite was not used in any of the Masses celebrated during the Congress, held at The Catholic University of America. The rite is approved for use only for Masses in the dioceses of Congo.
Cardinal Monsengwo was hailed as one of the last living clergy to have helped develop the rite and then advocate for its adoption by the Vatican.
Work on the rite had begun in 1961, before Vatican II had begun. Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, adopted in 1963, called for liturgical adaptation.
The Zairian rite is one of two rites particular to Africa; the Ge’ez rite has been approved for use for Catholics in Ethiopia and Eritrea.
When whites came to Africa, they brought the MASS. They didn't tell them "keep worshiping your jungle ancestors like they're the saints". They're not real Catholics if they need ancestor worship and jungle dance to worship God.
Everyone and anyone who's ever participated in the creation or worship of that rite needs to be excommunicated with the ability to lift it reserved to the bishop alone.
-
So the Sacraments and the Church are the "ordinary means" of salvation and the Church offers a lot of helps to salvation, making it easier. That's not what Catholic dogma teaches. Besides, if morals are subjective, then fornication is not against natural law and so pagans who fornicate on a regular basis do so without mortal sin while Catholics could go to hell after one sin? Prots who don't think they have a strict obligation to attend church services on Sunday commit no sin but Catholics who sleep in one time from Mass are subject to hellfire? So much for being a "help" to salvation.
Apply this picture to every single doctrine and moral teaching constituting the Catholic religion. When you make everything subjective, at the expense of the objective truth revealed by God, then no dogma of the Faith is ever safe....nothing else matters.
If EENS (as written) does not matter, then absolutely nothing in Catholicism really does.
In light of the creative spin by which LoT weaves EENS & BoD together, albeit amid screeching-grating-clanging-banging-and sparks and parts flying every which way, he may be able to grasp the grand reconciliation of the Vatican II docuмents with true Catholicism by way of Ratzinger's mental, verbal, aspiritual, and quantum gymnastics known as hermeunetic continuity.
-
In light of the creative spin by which LoT weaves EENS & BoD together, albeit amid screeching-grating-clanging-banging-and sparks and parts flying every which way, he may be able to grasp the grand reconciliation of the Vatican II docuмents with true Catholicism by way of Ratzinger's mental, verbal, aspiritual, and quantum gymnastics known as hermeunetic continuity.
Yep, LoT's ecclesiology differs in no way from that of Vatican II. There's little hermeneutic even required.
-
In light of the creative spin by which LoT weaves EENS & BoD together, albeit amid screeching-grating-clanging-banging-and sparks and parts flying every which way, he may be able to grasp the grand reconciliation of the Vatican II docuмents with true Catholicism by way of Ratzinger's mental, verbal, aspiritual, and quantum gymnastics known as hermeunetic continuity.
Yep, LoT's ecclesiology differs in no way from that of Vatican II. There's little hermeneutic even required.
And unfortunately many Traditional Catholic priests have similar ecclesiology as well, which has monumental implications for the Traditionalist movement as a whole. Almost everyone here critizices Bishop Fellay for pushing the SSPX towards deal with Rome. Honestly, I can at least partly understand him. He believes that Hindu can be saved without the Catholic faith and that people who die ignorant of Christ can be saved - if you hold such belief you are in a very difficult position in doctrinal talks about Vatican II with Rome, and eventually you might even come to believe that Vatican II can be reconciled with Tradition and the whole crisis is just about the New Mass and liturgical/discplinary abuses.
-
I think pagans can be kind people, but they are disobeying the First Commandment of the Big Ten. Hopefully they can come to the Cross.
God bless
-
...and eventually you might even come to believe that Vatican II can be reconciled with Tradition and the whole crisis is just about the New Mass and liturgical/discplinary abuses.
And you'd be absolutely correct. In fact, if you believe that Hindus can be saved, then you believe that Hindus can be "within the Church" (since there's no salvation outside the Church). Consequently, you believe V2 ecclesiology and everything else that flows from it. No reconciliation or hermeneutic required.
-
Let's see.
Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. Actual Members of the Church are the subsistent core, while also in the Church you can find various Hindus, Muslims, heretics, and schismatics. Sounds like a profound explanation of this reality. Check.
We have "separated brethren". Indeed Hindus and Muslims and heretics and schismatics are separated from us (because they do not share the Sacraments nor profess the faith) but they are brethren because they are within the Church. Check.
Ecuмenism. We're no longer talking about conversion but of coming into a greater fullness of truth. Conversion is no longer binary. Indeed if Hindus, Muslims, heretics, and schismatics are in the Church, it's not truly a question of "converting" them because they're already within the Church, but of opening their eyes to the full truth of Catholicism. Check.
Religious Liberty. Since doing the will of God and following your conscience and your lights (even if erroneous) pleases God and is salvific, and since everyone has an objective right to please God and save his soul, then everyone has an objective right to follow his conscience and his lights (even if erroneous). Check.
-
In light of the creative spin by which LoT weaves EENS & BoD together, albeit amid screeching-grating-clanging-banging-and sparks and parts flying every which way, he may be able to grasp the grand reconciliation of the Vatican II docuмents with true Catholicism by way of Ratzinger's mental, verbal, aspiritual, and quantum gymnastics known as hermeunetic continuity.
Yep, LoT's ecclesiology differs in no way from that of Vatican II. There's little hermeneutic even required.
Yep, that's due mainly because LoE learns his ecclesiology from the Fr. Fentons and other 'well respected' 20th century, dogma refining theologians. These refiners of dogma are the ones that helped pave the way for V2 and they are his mentors. That's why his ecclesiolgy differs in no way from that of V2.
It is their teachings that made it into the seminaries in the early 1900s and beyond - which is why so many SSPX and other trad priests share the same, or nearly the same V2 ecclesiology. As long as LoE remains a devoted student of the dogma refiners, I'm afraid he will continue to be a LoE.