Posted on 10/10/2004 4:38:20 PM PDT by Stubborn
The Second Vatican Council's reforms and the new theological challenges it posed placed the question of unbaptized babies on the back burner for most theologians, but many bishops around the world have asked the doctrinal congregation for guidance on the question.
This is a bit OT but, I need to disagree with the above statement - the Council of Florence has plainly stated what the church teaches in no uncertain terms....How folks seem to think this applies only to Catholics I really do not know - unless we're talking novus ordo re-interpretations.
It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church. - Eccumenical Council of Florence 1438-1445
What the Council of Florence says is true. But you are twisting things if you think this means that people who have never heard the gospel preached are condemned simply because they did not join the Church they had never heard of.
Another case of the Church infallibly saying something it did not actually mean? See post #8.
What Stubborn states is certainly what I was taught as a child in Catholic school 100 years ago. I was in the first grade and ran home crying because I was worried my Greek Orthodox grandparents would go to Hell. On the other hand, since then I have heard what Hermann says, or variations thereon.
As for the Council of Florence, as everyone knows, the Church in the East rejected that Council, much on account of the positions of St. Mark of Ephesus. Are your positions reconcilable, or have they been reconciled?
At this point, it might be useful to read the actual authoritative doctrine of the Catholic Church. I quote directly from the catechism here. Article 847 is particularly worthy of note, because it authoritatively answers the question about non-Christians, at least for Catholics.
I say "authoritatively" because it is an important word in Catholicism. The Cathechism was issued by the Pope himself, and explicitly invokes the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church. This is the Magesterium speaking. There are lots of Catholics who may not like aspects of the Catechism, but no Catholic has any authority to say that this is not Catholicism. This is Catholicism. Their difference of opinion may be within the Pale of acceptable belief, but that which directly contradicts this is not Catholicism, it is erroneous personal opinion.
Here is what Catholicism says about the subject:
_______________________
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Gen 6:8 Noah who "found grace in the eys of the Lord."
There is even biblical evidence that the unbaptized can find grace.
I absolutely agree with your interpretation that "The dogma [no salvation outside the Church] is truly aimed at those who leave the Church."
Herman has fallen into the trap that the new Church has laid. Hell is empty and one religion is as good as another.
"Diabolical error decks itself out with ease in lying colours with some appearance of truth, so that the force of pronouncement is corrupted by a very brief addition or change, and the confession of faith which should have resulted in salvation, by a subtle transition leads to death!"
Pope Clement XIII
Genesis 6:8
The only difference I see is that we say it's Adam's doing that his soul died and his body became corrupt. I think (I may be wrong) the Catholic see it as God's punishment.
One thing that suprises me is that the CCC comes right out and tells us that they Re-formulated it "positively". It begs the question - "positively" for who? Certainly not for us.
That they "Positively re-formulated" the dogma is only too obvious, yet playing on peoples' feelings, the modernist thinking indoctrinates nearly everyone with the belief that "no salvation outside the Church" actually means that there is salvation outside the Church.
He found grace - but that is not saying that he found salvation.
It depends on what one means by "Salvation outside of the Church".
Nobody is saved except by Jesus alone. That does not mean that the good Hindu knows the name of Jesus when he obeys God in his conscience and does right and pleases God, and is saved and goes to Heaven. There's only one God, and that's Jesus. Jesus saves him, through grace, but its a haphazard affair.
The Church is the visible body of Christ on Earth.
Those visibly within the Church who walk in the shadow of God and abide for life in the shadow of the Sacraments are, of course, saved.
But what about the Orthodox? Are they "outside the Church"? Who says? Do you believe that the Orthodox all go to Hell because they disagree with us over papal authority? How about the Anglicans? Is a cradle Lutheran damned to Hell because he was never taught to obey the Pope?
How about Catholics who hear what the Pope says but challenge its (and therefore his) authority? Are they still in the Church?
Are the SSPX, for example, outside of the Church and all damned to burn in Hell for eternity, just like one view would hold the Hindus, Orthodox and unbaptized babies are?
What is the Church?
Is the Church not, rather, the body of those upon whom God has poured out the Holy Spirit? Surely it is better that all such people be in visible, open communion with the visible Church, but aren't those who are blessed by the Holy Spirit also of the real, invisible Church, even though neither they nor we recognize it?
Are all of the Orthodox who have died since 1054 in Hell?
This presupposes that God does not offer the Hindu graces to accept Him while the Hindu is here on earth - and thats simply not true. God offers sufficient graces to each and every one of us - but we must accept them and grow in them - not reject them. That goes for every one of us.The Church is the visible body of Christ on Earth. Those visibly within the Church who walk in the shadow of God and abide for life in the shadow of the Sacraments are, of course, saved. But what about the Orthodox? Are they "outside the Church"? Who says? Do you believe that the Orthodox all go to Hell because they disagree with us over papal authority? How about the Anglicans? Is a cradle Lutheran damned to Hell because he was never taught to obey the Pope? It says what it says - "outside the Catholic church there is no salvation", and no re-formulation will ever make it otherwise. I didn't make the declaration - Popes, saints and Councils have - and Saints have been made saints, being martyred keeping that dogma. So whoever thinks the dogma is too stringent and not inclusive enough, needs to take it up with heaven when they get there.
How about Catholics who hear what the Pope says but challenge its (and therefore his) authority? Are they still in the Church? Are the SSPX, for example, outside of the Church and all damned to burn in Hell for eternity, just like one view would hold the Hindus, Orthodox and unbaptized babies are?
All I can say is that numerous times, the Dogma of "No Salvation" has been infallibly declared and anytime theres an infallible pronouncement, all ambiguity is removed so as to assure the message is unmistakably clear so the meaning of it will be universally understood, as such, no further interpretation is necessary.
No matter what anyone thinks of the dogma, one thing is fact - *ANY* re-formulation results in contradiction - and THATS the mark of infallability in the original pronouncement.
So, in other words, you believe that every person who has died since 34 AD who is not a Catholic is now in Hell.
Correct?
And you believe this is so because you believe it is the infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church that every person who has died not a Catholic is in Hell.
Correct?
Since then, for numerous reasons, many people have lost that faith. Repeat, many people lost the faith of the Apostles.
To persevere to the end in the Catholic faith is the greatest thing anyone can hope to achieve -and we are supposed to persevere - not hope to slip in at the last minute by the grace of God. If we do not persevere - or if we do not want to try because of our own personal reasons, I can only say that God, left us His Church, not because he thought it might be a nice idea, -He left us His Church because it was a necessity. This necessity has been infallibly declared numerous times.
I suggest that instead of folks scoffing at it as though its a harsh bunch of hooey, that they should heed exactly what it says and get their butts back into Holy Mother the Church before they die - just like it says.
Part of the problem is the belief in the false doctrine of 'original sin' in the first place.
Personally, I would say it is a bit of both. Anything that would happen to Adam could only happen by God's design. If we say his sin naturally caused all his afflictions, the next point to be made is that it is God that made him such that the afflicitions would surely follow the sin.
Yes, I largely agree, but that wasn't the issue.
Do people who are not Catholics go to Hell automatically?
Is that what you think "There is no salvation outside of the Church" means?
It certainly seems to be what you've insisted upon, as an infallible doctrine. You've been explicit and direct.
What you have seem to have said is that it is an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church that all non-Catholics go to Hell, and only Catholics (though by no means all who call themselves Catholics) go to Heaven.
Do you believe that?
If its a false doctrine - and assuming that you believe death is the result of sin, why do infants die if they are without sin?
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.