Posted on 05/27/2004 7:10:58 AM PDT by AskStPhilomena
That's kind of point nurse. The discussion was about the concept of real presence vs. symbolic representation, not the elements of a valid consecration. But to answer your question, yes words mean things and are crucial to the formation of a valid sacrament: along with matter and intent. As a former catechism teacher you should know this.
So, yes or no ,is Christ really and physically present: body, blood, soul and Divinity in your communion, or is it a representation, a symbol? Yes or no, is it a mere Symbol?
Since He preached the Real Presence, I suspect that that is what He believes.
I rebuke that in the Name of Jesus.
I don't happen to carry as large a library around in my brain as I might prefer.
Your remark came across as that of an arrogant, smug, self-righteous, RELIGIOUS, pharisaical snob.
Lovely.
Gramatically and by word definitions,
you have no more "right" to say that, than the other side has to their convictions.
Sheesh.
A rebuke would come in the form of evidence to prove your point, since you made the slanderous claim against the Church and the Mother of God. You have effectively proven yourself to be a reprobate. May God have mercy on you.
Paul didn't demand, nor expect anyone to accept his teaching authority on blind faith, but rather commended the Bereans as more noble because they consulted the Scriptures to verify if his teaching was true.
I do the same with Rome, and Rome is found lacking.
Wrong.
Logic and the New Testament alone should inform you otherwise.
I still decline to be your history teacher beyond what I've said.
So the elements are literally flesh and blood? I thought they were not literally flesh and blood (the "substance" thing)? Or perhaps this is a metaphor for accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior in a deeply personal, genuine way. How about an adult who professes faith, joins the RCC, and dies before taking first communion? Out of luck, I guess?
Isn't that taking what Jesus said at His Word?
Here is a dogmatic statement from the Ecumenical Council of Florence given by Pope Eugene IV:
"[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Is that clear enough for you?
Is this clear enough for you? Read the final three paragraphs. Earlier statements of the Magisterium are to be interpreted AS WE ARE INSTRUCTED TO INTERPRET THEM in LATER statements of the Magisterium. Otherwise, one is a Protestant Fundamentalist, merely exercising his Fundamentalism upon old statements of the Magisterium rather than upon Scripture.
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1467
Consequently, the most Eminent and most Reverend cardinals of our Supreme Congregation decreed in plenary session on Wednesday 27 July 1949, and the Sovereign Pontiff, in an audience on the following Thursday, 28 July 1949, deigned to approve the sending of the following doctrinal explanations, invitation and exhortations:
We are obliged by the divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things contained in the Word of God, Scripture or Tradition, and proposed by the Church for our faith as divinely revealed, not only by solemn definition but also by her ordinary and universal magisterium (Denziger n. 1792).
Now, amongst those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to teach, there is also this infallible declaration which says that there is no salvation outside the Church.
This dogma, however, has to be understood in the sense attributed to it by the Church herself. The Saviour, in fact, entrusted explanation of those things contained in the deposit of faith, not to private judgement, but to the teaching of the ecclesiastical authority.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there exists a very strict mandate from Jesus Christ, for He explicitly commanded his apostles to teach all nations to observe all things which He Himself had ordered (Matth XXVIII.19-20).
The least of these commandments is not that which orders us to be incorporated through baptism into Christ's Mystical Body, which is the Church, and to remain united with Him and with His Vicar, through whom, He Himself governs his Church in visible manner here below,
That is why no one will be saved if, knowing that the Church is of divine institution by Christ, he nevertheless refuses to submit to her or separates himself from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff, Christ's Vicar on earth.
Not only did our Saviour order all peoples to enter the Church, but He also decreed that it is the means of salvation without which no one can enter the eternal kingdom of glory.
In his infinite mercy, God willed that, since it was a matter of the means of salvation ordained for man's ultimate end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, its salutary effects could also be obtained in certain circumstances when these means are only objects of "desire" or of "hope". This point was clearly established at the Council of Trent, with regard to both the sacrament of baptism and of penance (Denziger, n. 797 and 807).
The same must be said of the Church, as a general means of salvation. That is why for a person to obtain his salvation, it is not always required that he be de facto incorporated into the Church as a member, but he must at least be united to the Church through desire or hope.
However, it is not always necessary that this hope be explicit as in the case of catechumens. When one is in a state of invincible ignorance, God accepts an implicit desire, thus called because it is implicit in the soul's good disposition, whereby it desires to conform its will to the will of God.
Obviously, your interpretation of the declaration from the Council of Florence is not consistent with the Catholic Church's understanding of the matter. Here, from the Catholic Encyclopedia published in 1911:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven. It is true such acts could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware that God has commanded all to join the Church, and who nevertheless should willfully remain outside her fold. For love of God carries with it the practical desire to fulfill His commandments. But of those who die without visible communion with the Church, not all are guilty of willful disobedience to God's commands. Many are kept from the Church by Ignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy. To others the external means of grace may be unattainable. Thus an excommunicated person may have no opportunity of seeking reconciliation at the last, and yet may repair his faults by inward acts of contrition and charity.
It should be observed that those who are thus saved are not entirely outside the pale of the Church. The will to fulfill all God's commandments is, and must be, present in all of them. Such a wish implicitly includes the desire for incorporation with the visible Church: for this, though they know it not, has been commanded by God. They thus belong to the Church by desire (voto). Moreover, there is a true sense in which they may be said to be saved through the Church. In the order of Divine Providence, salvation is given to man in the Church: membership in the Church Triumphant is given through membership in the Church Militant. Sanctifying grace, the title to salvation, is peculiarly the grace of those who are united to Christ in the Church: it is the birthright of the children of God. The primary purpose of those actual graces which God bestows upon those outside the Church is to draw them within the fold. Thus, even in the case in which God Saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church's graces. They are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body.
From the Oath Against Modernism:
"I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
Obviously, your interpretation of the declaration from the Council of Florence is not consistent with the Catholic Church's understanding of the matter.
I recall posting the dogmatic statement but not interpreting it. I would think its words are clear enough that no interpretation is needed. Are you putting words in my mouth regarding a denial of Baptism of Blood and Desire?
Please also feel free to comment on how "invincible ignorance" imparts sanctifying grace into a soul, which is necessary for salvation.
You're sadly mistaken.
"Outside the Church there is no salvation" is a dogma of our Catholic Faith.
In the Caput Firmiter, the 4th Lateran Council (1215) declared: "The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved" (extra quam nullus omnino salvatur). This was the teaching of Popes Innocent III, Boniface VIII (in the Bull "Unam Sanctam"), Clement VI, Benedict XIV, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius XII ("Mystici Corporis").
As against modern religious indifferentism, Pius IX declared "By Faith (de fide) it is to firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood"
However, Pope Pius IX subsequently adds "it is to be held that those who suffer invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord".
Even the modern catechism repeats this dogma (846).
For related information, may I respectfully suggest that you read Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
You got the phrase wrong silly, it is "pluriformity within unity"!
You are actually both correct. Read each others posts with charity and you'll see that.
Yes, we do seem to be advocating the same position.
I was objecting to the initial comment which appeared to suggest that a dogma of our Faith "is not "Catholic Truth."" Clearly, Arthur recognizes the Truth - and was merely opposing the heretical Feeneyite interpretation of this dogma. I too provided material to refute the Feeneyite arguments (a couple of hundred posts back).
I apologize for lacking charity - and jumping to conclusions before carefully reading Arthur's pertinent points.
Thank you for your valuable input in this long discussion. Hopefully there are now less "invincibly ignorant" people out there. I don't mean to "set the cat among the pigeons" once again but here's another interesting article I found from the same publication as this original thread:
http://www.oltyn.com/invig.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.