Good letter Letter from the wonder Tradition in Action.


No Salvation outside the Church


 

Dear TIA,

For those of good will who doubt whether there is still salvation for non-Catholics and whether the statement of Eugene IV was infallible, here is the solution given by Pope Boniface VIII:

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (definition i.e. infallible statement by Boniface VIII).

Many Catholics and non-Catholics have claimed that many men have lived who, without their fault, haven't ever heard about the Gospel. For this reason, their own faiths would be OK for salvation provided they would be in good faith i.e. would believe that their faiths are true (although they are not) and that they believe in God (although they don't).

"That was the true light, which enlightens every man that comes into this world," says the Bible (John 1: 9). Therefore, infallible Holy Scripture says that every man in this world is enlightened by Jesus Christ.

Obviously, what Eugene IV and Boniface VIII defined is most firmly grounded in the Bible: no man can be excused nor shall be excused for not being in the Catholic Church, i.e. subject to the Pope, because every man is sufficiently enlightened by Jesus Christ.

Regarding definitions of Catholic Faith, it should be kept in mind that they are all only one sentence, as are all the other definitions. So there is only one sentence, the first sentence stated by Eugene IV (that contains the text "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches"), which is infallible, while all the other sentences are only explanatory.

If A.W. and others like him don't repent for their belief that there is salvation for non-Catholics, they will confirm their unbelief in the definitions of Catholic Faith (by Eugene IV & Boniface VIII) and their bad will and shall lose their own salvation because of that.

     Regards in Christ,

     B.B.

  Where does that leave the three wise men?

 

Well, simply, it would leave the Three Wise Men as condemned, which is no issue when dealing with scripture, (the bible does not explicitly teach the wise men saved) but does bring interesting thoughts to the forefront as to why God would pick 3 men doomed to condemnation to be amongst the first to recognize the Messiah.

A more interesting question, which may apply not only to EENS, but also to much of the traditionalist literal interpretation of Baptism, Salvation, and many other things rigidly required for salvation, is Elijah.

And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold a fiery chariot, and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.   (4 Kings 2: 11)

Elijah most certainly was not subject to any Roman Pontiff.  That being said, he certainly did live prior to any, but he did not descend to 'Abraham's Bosom' as the rest of the souls who died before Christ.

Interesting to contrast idea of our God who supposedly would not offer any other means of salvation, save through baptism, subjection to the roman pontiff, and explicit belief in the Trinity, with the story of Elijah and his assumption into heaven.

Discuss?

I would think it would  be worded as 'into the heavens' if it were to be just skyward.

See Here.

That being said, Elijah was also on the mount at the transfiguration.  Would he have been present if he was sleeping in Seoul until the Messiah set them free?  

And for the Revelations, is it possible they are just symbolic of 2 great prophets that will appear, much like the woman with the sun and moon can be interpreted as many things, including Mary?

Actually, I believe that thee entire statement is dogmatic since it is from the council of Florence. A lot of the confusion that revolves around EENS today, is from the notion of implicit faith which appears to deny the necessity for supernatural grace and faith in order to be saved.

 Where does that leave the three wise men?

The three wise men were not bound by the New Covenant.

Actually, I believe that thee entire statement is dogmatic since it is from the council of Florence.

Any statement that meets the Vatican Council's criteria for infallibility is dogmatic.  There are some things from Florence that do not, as I'm sure you know.

But this is for others who may not be aware.

Infallible dogmatic teachings are when the Pope speaks in his solemn capacity as teacher and pastor of all Christians on a matter of faith and morals contained in the deposit of faith, with the intent to bind all Christians to belief and obedience.

A lot of the confusion that revolves around EENS today, is from the notion of implicit faith which appears to deny the necessity for supernatural grace and faith in order to be saved.

There is no implicit faith.  A person must know and believe faithfully and firmly the articles of faith to be saved, or you deny the Athanasian Creed, which the Council of Florence DID pronounce dogmatically.

Anyone who thinks that God doesn't or can't get His true religion to good willed people ought to read about this guy.

The three wise men were not bound by the New Covenant.

They were if they lived another 33 years or more.