Posted on 01/26/2005 8:18:19 AM PST by gbcdoj
Questions About Membership in the Church
To the man who reads twentieth-century theological literature at all perceptively, it becomes more and more apparent that the central area of interest to the writers of our time is and has been the science of ecclesiology. And, within the area of the tractatus de ecclesia, there is one essential point which is and has been at issue. It is the teaching that the Roman Catholic Church, the religious organization over which the Bishop of Rome presides, is actually the one and only supernatural kingdom of God on earth, the one and only institution outside of which no one at all is saved, and outside of which there is no remission of sins. Around this dogma of the Catholic faith most of the discussion in twentieth-century theological literature has revolved.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicculture.org ...
Well sure, of course. That's infallible Catholic doctrine. Of course nobody really believes that anymore, do they. Doesn't make it any less true though.
I have another question:
Then why would our Blessed Lady ask us to pray for all nations?
Isn't it to simply tobring all sinners to God through conversion to Jesus Christ?
Such as St. Paul, who previously persecuted the Christians was brought to conversion of faith in Jesus Christ?
Your theory would have me believe that even St. Paul would not be in heaven because he was an early Christian, previously a Jew??
Just something to think about. Good night.
Ping- this is a good one
The Immaculate Conception wasn't a dogma until Ineffabilis Deus. Bl. Pius IX convened over 400 bishops in Rome to debate the issue before defining the matter - but he knew well that a dogma could never be a legitimate subject of debate.
But see? They're all over the place, the whole lot of them. This in and of itself should be more than enough evidence that, hey, we aren't dealing with a doctrine here, but theological speculations concerning difficult situations we don't understand.
You could make the same appeal about, say, the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin, which was denied by many of the Fathers. But we know that that doctrine is part of the Deposit of Faith, and we have the testimony of Augustine and others to prove it.
Again, we have other saints and long-since dead theologians denying it.
What theologians, after Florence, denied baptism of desire? What theologians after Trent did not interpret, as St. Alphonsus Ligouri did, the Decree on Justification as supporting baptism of desire in Chapter IV?
But see the bolded part? That's not doctrine. He's saying this, yes, and it sounds cool, but the Church simply hasn't defined that.
The Church has decided that there are individuals inside the Church, although they are not members. Even prescinding from the Decree on Justification, there is the letter of the Holy Office, Lumen Gentium, the letters of Innocent II and Innocent III, the Roman Catechism... St. Pius X (Praestantia Scripturae) and Bl. Pius IX (Tuas libenter) both condemned the opinion that it is only necessary to believe infallibly defined doctrines.
This is sheer speculation. This is not doctrine. But look at this, though, in comparison to the above speculation:
Trent teaches that the Sacrament of Penance can be received by desire and so justify. If your interpretation of the canon was correct, it would have contradicted itself.
Nope. Each of the seven Sacraments is truly and intrinsically a Sacrament, and they are necessary for salvation, but that doesn't make the actual reception of the Sacraments intrinsically necessary. Otherwise, those who have perfect contrition and the desire for Penance could not be reconciled with God without the reception of the Sacrament, as the Council of Trent teaches.
the sacrament of Penance is a necessity only of precept
For those who have committed a mortal sin, Penance is a necessity of means. Trent writes: "This sacrament of penance is for those who have fallen after baptism necessary for salvation, as baptism is for those who have not yet been regenerated."
What Trent is saying is that the Sacraments, though not all, are necessary by their very intrinsic nature.
No, Trent is speaking precisely of the grace - which is why it writes "without them or without the desire of them", since the desire can sometimes suffice without actual reception of the Sacrament, according to the doctrine of the same Council on Penance (and Baptism).
That's a denial of all the clear and concise reiterations found in the first couple paragraphs of the letter that were so well written, claiming that "outside the Church there is no salvation".
You say that only because you have absorbed the false idea that only members of the Church are inside the Church. But the Church does not hold that concerning catechumens, who, although not members of the Church, can be saved if they die before baptism, as the Roman Catechism says.
This letter does not at all meet the barest resemblence to an action of the Supreme Pontiff rendering an infallibly binding definition or declaration.
Again there is the appeal that it must be infallible. Who is the real modernist?
Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradiction. (St. Pius X, Praestantia Scripturae)
Hmm. "in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff". Haven't we heard something like that before? It was right at the beginning of the Letter you quote:
Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:
Yep. "this Supreme Congregation ... decreed" and "the august Pontiff ... deigned to give his approval".
But the Church has always taught: Supernatural Faith can only be found within the Church.
Right, but there you go again assuming, wrongly, that the Church was speaking of only members of the Church.
But what this letter is putting forth is most certainly is NOT clearly taught [by] Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi.
It's quite odd, then, that he approved the Letter - and personally translated it into English! In my opinion, the explanation of Pius XII as to Mystici Corporis has more weight than yours.
Oh, and let's give an example of this. Take the case of a child, born to Catholic parents. He is baptized in a Catholic Church. Therefore, he's part of the Mystical Body, right? He has faith, hope, and charity, and if he dies he will be saved. Suppose both his parents are killed when he is, say, 2 or 3, and the State sends him to live with a Protestant family. He reaches the age of reason and his adoptive parents take him to their Protestant Church and make him make a profession of faith in their false Protestant religion. The child, however, (let's say) is inculpable due to ignorance. By making this false, public profession of faith, he has not sinned mortally, but he has removed himself from membership in the Catholic Church. So he has supernatural faith, hope, and charity, (as Augustine says, such persons are not to be accounted heretics, but if he is not a heretic then he must have the virtue of faith) joining him interiorly with the Church, but he is not a member, as members must "have been baptized and profess the true faith" (MCC 22), "profess" referring to outward profession. And if the child dies immediately after this false profession, then he would be saved as having died in the state of grace and within the interior communion of the Catholic Church - although he was not a member.
About your theory of only Catholics in heaven, I thought of another wrinkle this morning.
Why does the Catholic Church then accept the Baptism of individuals from a Protestant Church when they wish to convert to Catholicism?
If those Baptism in other churches are valid?? Hmmmm. Leaving it there for the discussion.
Do you have anything good to add to the arguement or are you going to Catholic bash?
In Baltimore 3 Q. 510 makes it clear that those who are baptized (the heretics that is), practices his religion as if it was the true Faith, and dies without the guilt of mortal sin on soul can be saved.
of course this assumes he is ignorant of the truth that the Catholic Church is the True Church, as stated in Q. 511.
I respect and admire how this conversation started out, and I am not sure which way I am swayed because I believe you are arguing over something which you both agree, at least in substance.
Now, when we begin to get into the individual examples and "what if?" scenarios, then we are playing God and going beyond what the Church teaches. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is the defined dogma. We all agree with that.
Now that applies to the individual examples and situations of each person is subjective, and of course, only God knows how His justice and mercy will be administered.
Whatever it is that happens with each and every individual person and his/her salvation is not for us to know. So why speculate on the "exceptional" cases. GBCDOJ, you speculate that the baptized turned Protestant due to parents dying is "ignorant." It does not matter. He has to be invincibly ignorant. And just because someone is invincibly ignorant (if indeed there is anyone), does NOT mean he/she will be saved. It means he/she will be judged in other ways by God. But once again, the Church has NO DEFINED TEACHING for the individual examples or cases you bring up other than Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. God is all just and He is all merciful. Everyone must be Catholic (the ordinary way is through baptism) and die in a state of grace to be saved.
In all my readings on this, and they have been many, I believe that Pope Pius IX, in Singulari Quadem, summarizes the entirety of this teaching in a nutshell:
"For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God.
"Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, religions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains 'we shall see God as He is' (1 Jn. 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' (Eph. 4:5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."
Notive the ending caution. "it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry" That means we must try to evangelize others, give good example and bring them into the fullness of the Faith, but that we are NOT to speculate on the individual salvation or circumstances of individual believers. It is also erroneous to talk about "salvtion outside the Church," when we know the dogma is "Outside the Church, there is no salvation."
Grace can occur outside the Church, sacramental and actual, but sanctifying grace does not. And it is only because of the Church and through the Church, that this grace occurs. Once again, we must distinguish between Catholic teaching and how it applies to individuals. None of us know authoritatively who is in hell, nor who is in heaven, aside from canonized saints. Have any saints who have been canonized known to be non-Catholics?
"It is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry." I take this caution to heart. Outside the Church, there is no salvation.
I don't think we do. Pascendi's position, as I understand it, is that no one who is not a member of the Church is saved, and that that is a defined dogma. Therefore all catechumens, etc. are damned if they are martyred or killed before baptism. According to him, it is "modernist" to say otherwise.
Now that applies to the individual examples and situations of each person is subjective, and of course, only God knows how His justice and mercy will be administered.
Of course.
I gave the example only to show that the supernatural charity, while unable to exist outside the Church, can be in those who are not members. But you are right that ignorance is a difficult case, even when strictly dealing with hypotheticals.
To give another example, if ecclesiastical authority cuts off a man by valid but unjust excommunication, he is removed from membership in the Church but retains the supernatural virtues and interior communion. Since pascendi's whole argument is based on the idea that it is impossible to be in the Church without being a member, these (strictly hypothetical) examples show the problem with it.
Have any saints who have been canonized known to be non-Catholics?
There are martyred catechumens in the Roman Martyrology, and some of the Eastern Orthodox saints like Gregory Palamas, as well.
bump for later
"Pascendi's position, as I understand it, is that no one who is not a member of the Church is saved, and that that is a defined dogma. Therefore all catechumens, etc. are damned if they are martyred or killed before baptism. According to him, it is "modernist" to say otherwise."
BCM: If this is indeed his position, then I would say it is a stricter interpretation than what the Church authoritatively holds, but is most likely not heretical.
As for the Saint you mentioned, he might have been from the East, and venerated by the Orthodox, but based on the link, he sure looks like he was united with the Church to me. They may claim him as well, but I think there are probably many such cases. The Church decides who was within her. Tell me if I am reading this wrongly.
http://www.catholicism.org/pages/MsgrDeery2.htm
This letter to the lead canonist for the diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts dated May 4, 1988, shows the wide ranging "interpretation" of the dogma that is allowed by Catholics in good standing. The letter from the canonist, after consultation with Cardinal Ratzinger, says the following:
“It would seem that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith holds the doctrine to have been defined and consequently definitive. It is its theological interpretation and speculation which they see as problematical.
“In our discussions with the Congregation it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who hold more liberal views.”
Right. St. Alphonsus and some other writers hold that Baptism of Desire is de fide based on Trent, but most don't. It is a similar situation to that prevailing before Vatican I on Papal infallibility, where Cardinal Manning argued that those who denied infallibility were material heretics - (seemingly including several Catholic bishops in attendance at the invitation of Bl. Pius IX!)
As for the Saint you mentioned, he might have been from the East, and venerated by the Orthodox, but based on the link, he sure looks like he was united with the Church to me.
I don't think so: "We will not receive you Latins into communion with us as long as you say that the Spirit is also from the Son" - from Gregory Palamas and the Pope of Rome
Or there is St. Symeon of Thessalonika (for his saintly status, see CCC1690, footnote 193: "St. Simeon of Thessalonica, De ordine sepulturæ. 336:PG 155,684."), who wrote (see First Things May 2001 Correspondence): “Let [the Latins] only show that the pope perseveres in the faith of Peter . . . and we will obey him not only as Peter, but as if he were the Savior himself. But if he is not the inheritor of the faith of the saints, then he will not be the inheritor of the Chair of Peter either.” We could make him patron saint for the sedevacantists!
We could make him patron saint for the sedevacantists!
Uhmm, yes... And Archbishop Lefebvre. But St. Augustine corrected many of his errant views and writings too, right? And Fr. Feeney died in union with the Church, so these saints might not have died holding onto these views--or if they did, it was judged it did not put them outside the Church, but this is a topic for another thread.
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.