Radio Replies First Volume - "Outside the Church no salvation"

Celledoor.com ^ | 1938 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

[GonzoII]

"Outside the Church no salvation,"

536. Do you maintain that one is obliged to join your infallible, one, holy, catholic, apostolic, and indefectible Church, if he wishes to be saved?

If a man realizes that the Catholic Church is the true Church, he must join it if he wishes to save his soul. That is the normal law. But if he does not realize this obligation, is true to his conscience, even though it be erroneous, and dies repenting of any violations of his conscience, he will get to Heaven. In such a case, it would not have been his fault that he was a non-Catholic and God makes every allowance for good faith.

537. So I deserve Hell because I am a non-Catholic?

If you say, "I know quite well that the Catholic Church is the true Church, which God obliges me to join, but what of that!" then you deserve Hell. That would be a serious sin. But apparently you do not realize this obligation. Your position is based upon insufficient or false information, and this leads you to a wrong if sincere conclusion.

538. If one has to be a Catholic to get to Heaven I shall be glad to stay outside.

That is an absurd statement, for there is no eternal happiness outside Heaven. But I understand what you mean. You believe the Catholic Church to be wrong, and you will not do what you believe to be evil that good may come. But God does not want you to do that. Nor do I. As long as you believe the Catholic Church to be wrong, you are obliged not to join it. Yet if ever God gives you the grace to perceive its truth, you will be obliged to join it, no matter what the cost in renouncing your previous attachments.

539. If a Catholic leaves his Church, and outside that Church lives a good and devout life, could he be saved?

You give an impossible case. To live a devout life is to live a life devoted to God. Now no Catholic can have a really sufficient reason to doubt the truth of his Church. If doubts do come, he owes it to God to make sure of his position before he acts, and inquiry will show such doubts to be unfounded. If he leaves without such inquiry, he is to blame for throwing away the best of God's gifts. If he inquires sincerely, he stays.

540. But what if he be fully convinced that the Catholic Church is wrong, even though his conscience be erroneous, would you blame him for leaving rather than violate his conscience by remaining?

I would blame him for allowing his conscience to become so convinced by insufficient reasons, and for not studying the grounds which absolutely guarantee the Catholic Church as the only completely Christian Church. His first difficulties should have led him to seek advice from competent guides.

541. So if a Catholic becomes a Protestant, he has no hope?

While there is life there is always hope. Such a man may return to the Catholic Church, or at least die sincerely repenting of ever having left it.

542. Are Protestants free to leave the Protestant Church, yet Catholics not free to leave the Catholic Church?

One may always renounce error for truth; but no one is free to forsake truth for error.

543. Christ died for all. He did not say that we must all be Catholics.

Since Christ died for all, it follows that He wants all to belong to the one Church He established and endowed with His authority.

544. Many clever men have examined the Roman claims and have rejected them. They do not think it necessary to join the Catholic Church.

Equally clever men are convinced of its necessity. After all, there are clever men who reject Christianity itself, but that does not make the truth of Christianity uncertain. We cannot argue from the degrees of intelligence in those who accept or reject the Catholic claim. Such differences of human thought prove nothing except that men differ. The real question is not affected. We must study carefully the value of the foundations upon which the claim rests.

545. You said that a Protestant in good faith could be saved. Does not that admit that his religion is sufficiently true?

No. Such Protestants are saved not because of, but in spite of their erroneous religion. They have simply been true to a conscience which was erroneous through no fault of their own.

546. What are the conditions for the salvation of such a good Protestant?

He must have Baptism at least of desire; he must be ignorant of the fact that the Catholic Church is the only true Church; he must not be responsible for that ignorance by deliberately neglecting to inquire when doubts have perhaps come to him about his position; and he must die with perfect contrition for his sins, and with sincere love of God. But such good dispositions are an implicit will to be a Catholic. For the will to do God's will is the will to fulfill all that He commands. Such a man would join the Catholic Church did he realize that that was part of God's will. In this sense the Catholic Church is the only road to Heaven, all who are saved belonging to her either actually or implicitly.

547. Since Protestants can be saved, and it is ever so much easier to be a Protestant, where is the advantage in being a Catholic?

Firstly, remember the conditions of salvation for a Protestant. If he has never suspected his obligation to join the Catholic Church, it is possible for him to be saved. But it is necessary to become a Catholic or be lost if one has the claims of the Catholic Church sufficiently put before him. I myself could not attain salvation did I leave the Catholic Church, unless, of course, I repented sincerely of so sinful a step before I died.

Secondly, it is easier to live up to Protestant requirements than to live up to Catholic requirements. Non-Catholic Churches do not exact so high a standard of their followers as does the Catholic Church of hers. But that is not the question. It is much easier to be a really good Christian in the full sense of the word as a Catholic than as a Protestant, and surely that is what we wish. What advantages contribute to this? They are really too many to enumerate in a brief reply. The Catholic is a member of the one true Church established by Christ. He has the glorious certainty of the true Faith, and complete knowledge of the whole of Christian truth is much better than partial information, if not erroneous information. By submission to the authority of Christ in His Church he has the advantage of doing God's will just as God desires. If he fails at times by sin, he has the certainty of forgiveness by sacramental absolution in the Confessional. He has the privilege of attending Holy Mass Sunday after Sunday, and the immense help of Holy Communion by which he may receive Our Lord Himself as the very food of his soul. He has the privilege of sharing in the sufferings of Christ, by observing the precepts of fasting and mortification. He receives innumerable graces from Sacramentals and from the special blessings of the Church. He may gain very useful indulgences, cancelling much of the expiation of his sins which would otherwise have to be endured in Purgatory. And he is more loved by God in virtue of his being a Catholic even as God loves the Catholic Church more than any other institution on the face of the earth. In short, even as there is an advantage in being a Christian rather than a pagan, so there is an immense advantage in being a true Christian and belonging to the one true Church rather than to some false form of Christianity. Thus a good Catholic has many advantages over and above those possessed by a good and sincere Protestant. But, as I have remarked, if a Protestant begins to suspect his own Church to be defective, inquires into the matter, and becomes convinced that the Catholic Church is the true Church, he has no option but to join that Church if he desires to avoid the risk of eternal loss.

Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/

[Texas Eagle]

Christ would not join with a sinful creature to become incarnate or Christ would have sin in His nature since Christ's blood was part of Mary's blood in order to become incarnate. A sinful Mary would mean Christ's nature has been corrupted by Mary's sinful blood that had to be part of Christ's blood in order for God to become true Man in Christ.

Wasn't Mary a descendant of the illegitimate offspring of David and Bathsheba?

[stfassisi]

“”Wasn't Mary a descendant of the illegitimate offspring of David and Bathsheba? “”

How does that mean that Mary must have sinned and do you believe that God has no power to remove the sin in one’s blood in order for Christ to enter the world through a sinless Mary?

If Mary had sin in her it means that sin has power over the incarnation because God has not the power to give such Grace to remove sin from the Mary who He joined with Christ in her womb.

I'm done posting tonight

[Texas Eagle]

If Mary had sin in her it means that sin has power over the incarnation because God has not the power to give such Grace to remove sin from the Mary who He joined with Christ in her womb.

A) Doesn't it say somewhere in The Bible that ALL have sinned and fallen short of The Glory of God?

B)I don't know how much power your god has, but my God has enough power to do whatever He wants.

[Dmitry Vukicevich]

Mary was not sinless, just a virgin. I don’t try to put God in a box.

[bdeaner]

Great stuff!

[Religion Moderator]

Do not use potty language - or references to potty language - on the Religion Forum.

[kosta50]

Jesus did not die because of fallen nature from Adam and Eve.

Then he committed suicide. Last time I checked, he died of wounds inflicted on him, perhaps at the hour of his choosing, but nonetheless his death was bodily real. Surely you are not suggesting he faked it?

If you want a theological take on it, he died in his human nature a real death, just like any one of us. Having assumed the sins of the whole world, he suffered corruption and death, even if he personally did not commit those sins.

His resurrection proves that death has been defeated.

In the context of him offering himself as ransom for us, yes. As +John Chrysostom says "Death expected a body and received God." Our sins have been "paid for" and death couldn't hold him, so death lost. It's a nice story, but it all boils down to hope that this is what happened. There is no proof of anything.

Mary's bodily assumption proves that a creature of God in perfect union with God's will defeated the OT Eve's disobedience,thus making her the New Eve that overcame fallen nature by being “full of Grace”(Kecharitomene)

But the "New Eve" according to the Latin Church never had a fallen nature to overcome. Yet it doesn't explain why would she die if she was not fallen and never sinned. Obviously the Church in the East believed all along that she did die and even celebrated her feast of Dormition. If the West did not believe that, why wasn't that brought up?

What you're saying is that mortality has to have precedence over perfection,even in the case of Jesus and Mary.This would make Adam and Eve's sin have power over God.

No, bother, it is not I but the Orthodox Church that teaches that our sin resulted in a fallen (mortal) nature and that from then on it is in our nature to die. If death did not have precedence then why did Christ have to die to render death powerless? Obviously no one could be saved before Christ, so it seems to me that death had quite a precedence on earth.

If Mary was incorrupt she would not have died. The Church (Eastern) believes she died, ergo she was not without corruption even if she was sinless because it was in her (mortal, fallen) nature to die. And when Jesus took the sins of the world, he died.

Mary is also the “Immaculate ark” of the New Covenant joined together with Christ in her womb.(not just some vessel as some protestants think)

Not in the early Church, certainly not before +Irenaeus. But +Ignatius at the turn of the first century called her a "suitable vessel." Surely he is not counted as a "Protestant" in the Latin Church. And +Justin Martyr, just 50 years later called her an "obedient virgin" and then proceeded to suggest that virgin Eve  conceived the word of the serpent, while virign Mary conceived the Word of God! I can't begin to tell you how heretical this is!

+Irenaeus, forty years later (but in a Latin copy dating to the late 4th century; the Greek original id nonextant) called her advocata, suggesting intercession, an unfortunate term because in Greek it translates as Paraclete (the title of the Holy Spirit!). Origen (250 AD)  is the first to call her Theotokos, but no one yet calls her immaculate.

It is only in the third century, mostly under Origen's influence, that Mary begins to be exalted (as in the Sub Tuum Praesidium, a 250 A.D prayer) and capable of "delivering [sic] us from dangers." The ever-growing eexaltation of Mary obviously grew only to be incorporated into the dogmatic deposit of the Church through the Ecumenical Councils, but not before that.

[stfassisi]

“”If you want a theological take on it, he died in his human nature a real death, just like any one of us. Having assumed the sins of the whole world, he suffered corruption and death, even if he personally did not commit those sins.””

I agree with this

The point I’m trying to make here is that sin had no power over Christ because death was defeated in His Resurrection

“”But the “New Eve” according to the Latin Church never had a fallen nature to overcome.””

It’s explained by God granting Mary a singular act of Grace not given to any other creature other than Adam and Eve,thus, Mary’s obedience overturned the disobedience of eve and thus become the New Eve to become universal mother of all that have been redeemed.

God is not limited in granting Mary this special Grace,dear brother

Here is more from Fulton Sheen....

“Our Blessed Mother: not only did she beget a Son, but the Son also begot her. This is the connection between Bethlehem and Calvary. She gave Him Sonship, but He also gave her Motherhood. At the crib ... His Mother; at the Cross she was called the “Woman.” No Son in the world but Christ could ever make His Mother the mother of all men, because the flesh is possessive and exclusive. Making her the Woman or the Universal Mother was like a new creative word. He made her twice: once for Himself, and once for us in His Mystical Body. She made Him as the new Adam; He now installs her as the new Eve, the Mother of mankind.

This transfer of His Mother to men was, appropriately, at the moment He redeemed them. That word “Woman” from the Cross was the second Annunciation, and John was the second Nativity. What joy went with her mothering Him! What anguish went with His Mothering her! Mary’s mind was filled with the thought of Divinity in the stable; but at Golgotha it is sinners that are uppermost in her mind, and she now begins their mothering. The curse of Eve hangs heavily on Mary: “Thou shalt bring forth children in sorrow.” When we contrast the great difference between her Divine Son and us, her sorrow, from our point of view, must have been not only “How can I live without Him?” but also “How can I live with them?” This was the miracle of substitution, for how can one be satisfied with straggling rays when one has been with the sun? The humility of which she sang at the Magnificat was not only a confession of unworthiness to be the Mother of God, but also the admission now of her readiness to be the Mother of man. It was a grief not to die with Him; it was a greater grief to live on with us.”
Taken from THE WORLD’S FIRST LOVE by Bishop Fulton Sheen 1952http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/mary-sword1.htm

I’m off to enjoy the day.

I wish you a blessed day!

[kosta50]

The point I’m trying to make here is that sin had no power over Christ because death was defeated in His Resurrection

Because, Christ being God, death could not keep him. It's really no special effort on his part, is there? His resurrection (as per the Creed) is proof of his own divinity, yet Paul insists that he was raised by God and not on his own.

thus, Mary’s obedience overturned the disobedience of eve and thus become the New Eve to become universal mother of all that have been redeemed.

I am not disputing that. I asked why did she die if she was created as a pre-fall human and never sinned.