Posted on 02/07/2011 8:45:48 AM PST by verdugo
We all hate it when someone makes a promise and doesn’t keep it. “But you promised!” we will say, and, depending on the level of blame and sensitivity of conscience on the part of the offending party, the reaction can be one of great shame. If this is true of promises one is simply unable to keep because circumstances forbade it, it is more so in the case of false promises: that is, those made with no intention of keeping them, or those one had absolutely no authority to make. To promise salvation to a non-Catholic, either directly or indirectly, falls in the latter category as being particularly shameful. It is shameful because it is sinful. It is sinful because it offends not only against faith, but against the greatest Christian virtue: charity.
That the Church has defined there is no salvation outside her means that this proposition is true, and we know it is so with a divinely guaranteed certitude. Genuine charity is rooted in truth. A lie is an affront to truth and therefore an offense against charity. The ontological and psychological connection between truth and charity is a basic Christian concept, whose origin is in the Trinity Itself. Pope Benedict XVI recently highlighted this truth-charity nexus:
To defend the truth, to articulate it with humility and conviction, and to bear witness to it in life are therefore exacting and indispensable forms of charity. Charity, in fact, “rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor 13:6). … Only in truth does charity shine forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived. (Caritas in Veritate, No. 1, 3, emphasis in original.)
There are various theories regarding how non-Catholics get to heaven as non-Catholics. Many of these have been advanced by churchmen of high rank. Rather than attempt to disprove these opinions in polemical fashion, I would prefer to show the truth of their contrary, and the consequent duty we have in charity not to waver from it. Out of love for God and for our non-Catholic neighbor, we must not give false or even uncertain assurances concerning how salvation is to be attained, and, consequently, how damnation is to be avoided. That would not be “doing the truth in charity” (Eph. 4:15), as St. Paul enjoins upon Christians.
Let’s consider an oft-cited infallible definition:
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
We often hear the objection that someone does not need to be a “formal” member of the Church in order to be saved. The implication is that the spiritual trumps the juridical, and that God is not a stickler for names on baptismal registers and the like. But the implication often reaches further than such trivialities, to include what the Church has defined is necessary for salvation. The objection frames the issue of being Catholic in a far-too-juridical way. What makes us inside the Church? Three things: Divine and Catholic Faith (explicit in the principal mysteries — the Trinity and the Incarnation — and at least implicit in all other articles), sacramental baptism, and subjection to the Holy Father. These defining elements of Church membership expounded by St. Robert Bellarmine were authoritatively postulated by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [I Cor., XII, 13] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [Cf. Eph., IV, 5] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [Cf. Matth., XVIII, 17] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (No. 22)
There are many people who would not be considered “formal” members of the Church who are, in fact, Catholics in the dogmatic sense. Consider a case I’m personally familiar with: a teenager baptized in a (schismatic) Orthodox church in Russia. Adopted by a Catholic couple when she was about eleven years old, she continued to communicate and confess in the Catholic Church as she had in the Orthodox parish in Russia. The Catholic priest in this country said that as long as she believed in the pope — which she did — she was free to receive the sacraments. Yet I have been assured that, juridically, she is still considered Orthodox. I am fairly certain that her name appears on no Catholic parish register. For all that, she meets the three of the requisites above. This young lady could not be more Catholic. What is important are not the “juridical” issues, but the ecclesiological, sacramental, and “creedal” elements that truly make one a Catholic. Perhaps we can put it in terms that might make a canonist cringe: de facto Catholicism is what matters, not de jure Catholicism.
The overly legalistic analysis strikes me as somewhat disingenuous, too, inasmuch as those who advance it generally accuse us (“Feeneyites”) of being hung up on some sort of formalism. Assuredly we are not; but we are hung up on Catholicism.
Note in the definition of the Council of Florence that “pagans, … Jews and heretics and schismatics” are all categorically described as “existing outside the Catholic Church” and, consequently, they cannot “have a share in life eternal.” With only two exceptions, those “outside” the Church according to Florence correspond exactly to those not included as “members” by Pius XII. Those exceptions are 1) unbaptized believers (e.g., catechumens), whom Florence does not mention in Cantate Domino, but whom Pius XII clearly states are not members; and 2) excommunicates, whom Florence does not mention.
The unbaptized catechumen and analogous individuals bear a certain close relationship to the Church, as they have her faith, assent to her government, and seek her sacraments. I don’t see the need to be preoccupied with this question, as some are. God will provide for His own, and these people are His by those ties I’ve just mentioned. God will not cast off anyone who perseveres in His grace.1 Regarding excommunicates, we know from the grave nature of excommunication that those who die in that terrible state — if they really are excommunicated in foro interno — are lost. What concerns me most are the “pagans, … Jews and heretics and schismatics” that do not have the Church’s faith, do not assent to her government, and may or may not have a sacrament or two, or even seven. The Church infallibly assures us that those who fit these descriptions are not in the way of salvation and that “that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her.” Jesus commands us in the Holy Gospels to preach the unvarnished Catholic Gospel to these. If we let human respect get in the way of the great mandate, we damn ourselves.
These categories are not beyond comprehension. “Pagans” (or the synonymous “infidels”) would include not only unbelievers like atheists and agnostics, idolators like Hindus, or pantheists like Buddhists, but also Muslims, whom the Catholic world lumped into the category “pagan” in the fifteenth century when the Florentine Fathers met. “Jews” are hardly in need of explanation. They identify themselves as such. The words “heretic” and “schismatic” are rarely used in common parlance today, even in ecclesiastical circles, for they are considered “divisive” and even rude. Yet, the Church not only officially uses the words, but also clearly defines them in the current (1983) Code of Canon Law:
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Elsewhere in the Code (1364 §1), we are informed that members of all three categories here mentioned automatically excommunicate themselves from the Church: “An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication…”.
I am very well aware that theologians distinguish between formal and material heresy as well as between formal and material schism. These are perfectly legitimate distinctions. Someone baptized and brought up in an alien sect will inevitably be, for a time anyway, merely in material heresy or schism. Before the age of reason, it’s not even a question: the child is a Catholic plain and simple. There are no infant Lutherans, Syrian Jacobites, or Serbian Orthodox — only pagan ones and Catholic ones. At what point one brought up in such a sect formally adheres to heresy or schism is God’s business and I’ll not lose the least amount of sleep over the question. What is the duty of the Church, however, and what ought to make us lose a few winks, is the duty we have to witness to the truth of where salvation is to be found. To keep people somnolent in their errors is just plain damnable. Let us suppose for a moment that one of the infants we’ve just considered lives to his teens in a blissful merely material heresy. Supposing he commits a mortal sin? Where does he seek forgiveness? Let’s say that his particular denomination believes that sin cannot separate us from God’s love — as so many believe? What then? Will the same priest who puts the fear of God into a Catholic boy struggling against vice do a volte-face and assure the non-Catholic suffering the same moral afflictions a place in Paradise should he die — even though he will not seek the sacrament of God’s mercy because his parents taught him it’s a popish abomination?
Indifferentism breeds strange contradictions.
While these distinctions are real, and have a valuable place in Catholic theology, they are not intended to contradict the plain meaning of dogma. Theology is meant to serve the revealed word, not to annul it.
The explanation that I recently read on the blog of a particularly intelligent priest, to the effect that God can save someone outside the Church very much misses the point. To argue from God’s sheer power while prescinding from His revelation is a dangerous thing. God could, by His naked omnipotence, use me — who am not a priest — to confect the Eucharist, couldn’t He? By His omnipotence, God could arrange for a child of our own times to be immaculately conceived. Neither of these things entails an inherent contradiction like squaring a circle, but both contradict defined dogma. It would be wiser to believe that God’s grace and providence will make things happen in conformity to His revelation — despite the apparent “unlikeliness” of it.
If we trust God’s grace, justice, and mercy to conform perfectly to the dogmatic teaching of His Church, we will never regret it. And that, I can promise.
There *is* salvation outside the Church, in that God is sovereign. To say otherwise is contrary to what the church has taught since day 1.
The unfortunate thing is that you are the product of poor catechisees and you now nothing about the faith. You just declared a heresy (There *is* salvation outside the Church)and you don't even know it. With every word that you type you pronounce your ignorance of the faith.
You should really go to mass, pray, and study the faith, AND find yourself a real Catholic priest, for whoever has taught you, has not taught you the Catholic Faith.
Just so that we are clear where the disagreement exists,
Let’s sort through everything he said.
1, Christ is the way of salvation. Yes, absolutely.
2, He is present to us in his body, the Church. Yes.
3, He himself asserted necessity of faith and baptism. Yes.
4, He affirmed the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism, as the door.
No. Absolutely not. Sorry. John the Baptist was Baptizing before the Church was created by Christ. Those who are not Christian, can, in an emergency, baptize.
Christ chose to create the Church, in order that the Word would be spread throughout the world. He also promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the church.
Do I believe that there is one true church? Yes, this is why I am Catholic. I believe that the Catholic church is the Church that Christ founded.
Do I believe that God cannot save without the Church? No. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Christ even says to the disciples,
In fact, Christ even says, in Mark 9:38-41
“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.
2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism andatheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.
3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians. 4. Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one"[1]. And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"[2]? All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a mostgrave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.
5. Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those schemes which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians.
8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.
9. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you"[18]. For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. 10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.
I’ve read Fr. Freeney’s book. I read it as a catechumen. It was very helpful to me in understanding why he was incorrect.
“You just declared a heresy (There *is* salvation outside the Church)and you don’t even know it. With every word that you type you pronounce your ignorance of the faith.”
I’m aware of the disagreement. I believe I stand on the side of the Pope and the Church in that she teaches salvation may be obtained outside of the Church as God is sovereign. He does not need the Church, anymore than he needs anything at all. He chose to found His Church. There is a difference between need and want. He wants all of us to come to him freely, but he does not need us in any way.
You say you are a Catholic, and you go to communion with the Eastern Orthodox, and now you are winging it with scripture against Catholic dogma. An amazing contradictory mix in one person.
I now seriously doubt that you are even a Catholic. I don’t think you even know what you are.
“all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy”
I have never said this, so let’s be fair here Verdugo. let’s also be fair and understand that the Eastern Catholics have not said this either.
“is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics”
Thank goodness he refers to Catholics, which include our Eastern brothers.
Did I say I go to communion with the Eastern Catholics? No. All I said is that we are permitted to do so, because we are in communion with them.
“I now seriously doubt that you are even a Catholic”
Well feel free to ask Bishop Gagnon of Victoria BC. I’ll give you his number, and I’m sure he’ll respond to his inquiry. I worked with him throughout my catechumenate. A wonderful man.
First off it's Fr. Feeney. Secondly, he's written many books. Thirdly, I have not quoted Fr. Feeney ONCE! He is a nobody in this discussion. The liberals and enemies (the enemies of those who believe in the traditional 1900 year old strict interpretation of EENS), use Fr. Feeney as a diversion, so that they don't have to address all the real inconsistencies in their fallible theories. The Fr. Feeney diversion, is a type of ad-hominem attack. AND by the way for the tenth time the followers of Fr. Feeney like the author of this thread, are in union with Rome. Rome does not consider them in error or heretics.
“does not consider them in error or heretics”
I’m not sure you quite understand what a heretic is.
What’s the difference between a heretic and a schismatic?
I asked that you didn’t reply.
It’s never been the issue with any of the SSPX folks over heresy. Nor with Freeny, and his belief that there is no salvation outside the Church.
re:Thank goodness he refers to Catholics, which include our Eastern brothers.
You are in denial. The Orthodox are heretics and schismatics. They are not part of the Catholic Church.
The Eastern Rite Catholics are Catholic, like the Ruthenian Rite Catholics in the in Ukraine, or the Greek Catholics, they would find what you just wrote laughable. Learn your faith. Maybe one of them is reading this and he can enlighten you. It’s not my rite.
You should get off the Internet and go and learn about the Faith. You know nothing. While you are at it, scroll up this thread and you will find where I posted the definition of heresy.
I shall not respond to you again. I've written enough and you have written enough errors to let me know that you know nothing and do not want to learn anything that you don't like.
The reason I bring him up is because he advocates the same position that you do. It is pertinent, that when people choose to espouse his opinion, that we confront the source.
I’m aware that you and him both argue that this dispute goes back to the ancient church. I am in agreement with you on this part.
Where we disagree is whether it is the doctrine of the church that no one who is outside of the Church will be saved. This I disagree. There’s the argument over the invicibly ignorant, which is one. There’s also the argument wrt to the Patriarchs. Are they a part of the Church when the Church did not exist in his time? What about John the Baptist? Just who is considered to be a part of the Church?
If you are arguing that unless you are baptized in the Catholic church, you are condemned to hell, that’s not what Lumen Gentium teaches (which has already been quoted in the thread).
“You are in denial. The Orthodox are heretics and schismatics.”
If they are heretics, what is their heresy?
There are many here with more knowledge of the faith than I.
If I’ve erred, they will write me.
As for not wanting to hear what I do not want to hear, I’m perfectly willing to be corrected. It has nothing to do with what I personally believe and everything to do with what the Church teaches.
You have quoted dogma throughout the thread. The problem is that you’ve not quoted dogma that is actually pertinent to the issue being discussed.
You’ve argued the following.
1, that I believe that there are many ways to God, which I NEVER said.
2. you quoted the doctrine which explains why ecumenism along these lines is fruitless.
3. you argued that we are not to take communion with these folks because of these reasons, something which I am VERY aware of in my personal life.
You’ve yet to quote any reference to the Orthodox church as heretics and schismatics, which is a very serious charge.
So where is it?
THE EASTERN ORTHODOX HAVE NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED CATHOLIC
The confusion that already exists in the Catholic terminology with the progressivist innovations was not enough. Now we have another source of hermeneutical pollution – the schismatics begin to call themselves “catholics". (and aberrosexuals call themselves "gay").
A Catholic, according to the classic definition of St. Robert Bellarmine, adopted by the Magisterium, is one who professes the Catholic Faith, who submits to legitimate Pastors, principally the Roman Pontiff, and shares in common the seven Catholic Sacraments. The Eastern Orthodox have never fulfill these conditions, and thus are not Catholics, but schismatics.
Additionally, for a long time prior to the Schism (1054), various precursors of the movement, among them Photius (886), defended the heresy according to which the Third Person of the Holy Trinity would not proceed from the First and the Second. Cerularius and other Schismatic Greeks also adhered to this error. Therefore, in the 11th century when the Catholic Church declared this movement schismatic, she was exercising mercy, because the normal procedure would have been to declare it heretical. Until today, the Greek and Russian schismatics defend the same error. In addition to denying this dogma, there are at least three others that are not accepted by the Greek and Russian schismatics: they are the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, the Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility. Therefore, in reality, for quite some time the self-proclaimed “Orthodox church” has ceased to be orthodox and has been heretical.
Thus it can be seen that today the Orthodox Eastern Church is not merely schismatical, but truly heretical; for it holds primary doctrines in a different light.
Additional Heresies:
The Orthodox Eastern church's also teaches that the souls of the just will not attain complete happiness till the end of the world, when they will be joined to their bodies; and that the souls of the wicked will not suffer complete torture in hell until that last day. These are heresies against the doctrines of the Church. Besides these dogmas, there are still many other doctrinal points, such the monarchical structure of the Catholic Church,the role of the Sovereign Pontiff in this monarchy that it rejects, Limbo, purgatory, andthe indissolubility of marriage, to name but a few. These mentioned differences are more than enough to show that the “Orthodox” are not orthodox at all, but normally should be called heretics,
Thus it can be seen that today the Orthodox Eastern Church is not merely schismatical, but truly heretical; for it holds primary doctrines in a different light.
“In addition to denying this dogma, there are at least three others that are not accepted by the Greek and Russian schismatics: they are the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, the Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility”
Immaculate conception was proclaimed as infalliable well after the split. So there’s plenty of things that we’ve done in the past millenium that will have to be caught up.
It seems to me that the primary obstacle is Petrine Primacy, and probably infalliability as well, both of which were declared in the 19th century. I hope they can eventually overcome these issues. Petrine primacy is how the Church has always worked, Constantinople isn’t even the oldest eastern patriarch, and none of them save Rome has remained in Christian jurisdiction for quite some time.
This I think is the gravest tragedy. There were 5, and now there are 1. Would be nice to have all 5 together again.
“indissolubility of marriage”
Is that a recent change? I was aware of the filoque, but I don’t believe that’s a serious barrier, and that the Orthodox would be willing to accept the Filoque.
What’s the evidence for their eschatology? That is one I’ve not heard before.
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.