The Compendium of the Catholic Church on BOD

Jehanne,

Yes, I agree with you about the Athanasian Creed: it's quite emphatic about the necessity of the Catholic faith, and tells us what the essentials of that is.

But here's the problem, from the Compendium of the Catechism, Paragraph 262:

"Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire).

I believe HolyRussia cited that, not the "overwhelming consensus" of theologians. That's the Church, not a theologian, talking.

tornpage

tornpage wrote:Jehanne,

Yes, I agree with you about the Athanasian Creed: it's quite emphatic about the necessity of the Catholic faith, and tells us what the essentials of that is.

But here's the problem, from the Compendium of the Catechism, Paragraph 262:

"Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire).

I believe HolyRussia cited that, not the "overwhelming consensus" of theologians. That's the Church, not a theologian, talking.

tornpage

Was this addressed in Fr. Harrison's paper on Explicit Faith?

tornpage wrote:Jehanne,

Yes, I agree with you about the Athanasian Creed: it's quite emphatic about the necessity of the Catholic faith, and tells us what the essentials of that is.

But here's the problem, from the Compendium of the Catechism, Paragraph 262:

"Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire).

I believe HolyRussia cited that, not the "overwhelming consensus" of theologians. That's the Church, not a theologian, talking.

tornpage

It is a heretical teaching. Did JP II excommunicate himself? Honestly, I do not know. I am not a sede, but I do recognize the sede position as being possible, but not necessarily probable.

Roguejim wrote:

tornpage wrote:Jehanne,

Yes, I agree with you about the Athanasian Creed: it's quite emphatic about the necessity of the Catholic faith, and tells us what the essentials of that is.

But here's the problem, from the Compendium of the Catechism, Paragraph 262:

"Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire).

I believe HolyRussia cited that, not the "overwhelming consensus" of theologians. That's the Church, not a theologian, talking.

tornpage

Was this addressed in Fr. Harrison's paper on Explicit Faith?

I have been trying to find that paper now for a long time. It was on the SBC website, but Father Harrison withdrew it.

The Saint Benedict Center sells the Mp3 audio of the talk on their website:

http://store.catholicism.org/can-an-implicit-faith-in-christ-be-sufficient-for-salvation-mp3.html


Can an Implicit Faith in Christ Be Sufficient for Salvation? MP3


Price: $3.00 Price: $0.00
By: Harrison, Father Brian
Quantity: 1 (Downloadable product: not recommended for dial-up.)


Title: Can an Implicit Faith in Christ Be Sufficient for Salvation?

By Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S.

Having just retired from his position as professor of Theology at the Pontifical University of Puerto Rico, Oblate of Wisdom Father Brian Harrison graced Saint Benedict Center with a five-day visit. That visit was highlighted by this very informative presentation on the necessity of explicit faith in Jesus Christ and His redemption for the beginning of salvation, which is the state of justification, the state of grace. A devoted Thomist, Father Harrison used the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas to validate his position, which is also that of the Center, on this issue. In illustrating the doctrine as presented in the Summa Theologica of the angelic doctor, our speaker also corrected those theologians who vainly attempt to justify non-believers via the cloak of invincible ignorance by using certain texts from the Summa that address the question of implicit faith. It is almost universally held today, Father argues, that certain non-Christians who follow the natural law can be saved because faith in Christ is implicit in whatever natural religious truths they do believe or whatever natural good acts they do perform. After stating the fallacy, which he considers to be at least proximate heresy, he structures his arguments with great theological precision to build a solid body of refutation. Can a layman follow along and benefit from this presentation? Absolutely. Father is not targeting a class of theologians but a class of ordinary Catholics that need ammunition to defend the infallible doctrine, a doctrine that a child can understand, No salvation outside the Church.

I was going to buy the MP3, until I read of Father Harrison's "withdrawal" of his position. It seems to me that he has spent a lot of time trying to "reconcile" traditional Catholics to the mainstream Church, sometimes, IMHO, calling "black" as "white." In this era of precision physics and engineering, the present Pope (as well as his predecessor) seems unable to articulate his positions using clear language (as with the recent condom fiasco), but I digress, so this will be my last post for this thread.

(I was replying to the Forum Janitor, who's post has disappearred!)

It is possible that since Fr. Harrison is a religious that his superior asked him to take it down.

Fr. Harrison's talk is excellent for introducing the EWTN type crowd to the Dogma. It was pivotal in my coming to accept the Dogma. He also comes at it from several interesting points of view. I highly recommend it, you won't be disappointed.

(By the way the forum janitor and Rasha are the same person, LOL)

Another mystery solved! (Better than Scooby-Doo, which I love.) Okay, fair enough. I will pay the $3 for the lecture.

tornpage wrote: That's the Church, not a theologian, talking.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Compendium, as well as previous Catechisms, are not more authoritative than Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils...

The official approval of the CCC by Pope John Paul II states that the CCC is not intended to replace local catechisms. So, if a catechism is "the Church... talking" then we have a serious problem here in the States since the first edition of our Catechism said that God's covenant with the Jews remains "eternally valid for them". I've printed out the correction, folded it up and stuck it between the pages, and even blacked out the offensive sentence... but I can still read it.

Jehanne wrote:

tornpage wrote:Jehanne,

Yes, I agree with you about the Athanasian Creed: it's quite emphatic about the necessity of the Catholic faith, and tells us what the essentials of that is.

But here's the problem, from the Compendium of the Catechism, Paragraph 262:

"Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire).

I believe HolyRussia cited that, not the "overwhelming consensus" of theologians. That's the Church, not a theologian, talking.

tornpage

It is a heretical teaching. Did JP II excommunicate himself? Honestly, I do not know. I am not a sede, but I do recognize the sede position as being possible, but not necessarily probable.

No, it is not “heretical”, even if one can only “sigh” at what it might suggest.

And neither it is it technically a product of Pope JPII since it was written under the authority of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (reporting to JPII), and authorized and published by Pope Benedict XVI.

Look, as I said elsewhere, the Church makes a distinction with invincible ignorance when she teaches that it may not (as a preparation for the Gospel) be a hindrance to the divine light of grace, provided there are the proper dispositions in place to act on the graces one is given.

To say that one “can be saved” under the impulse of grace by “baptism of desire” does not mean that one can be saved without supernatural faith or outside the Church. Whether an explicit belief in our Lord is a necessary disposition (in “the manner of preparation” - see Trent) before our Lord infuses a soul with the divine light of supernatural faith (perhaps at the moment of death - along with the revelation of explicit faith) has never been “defined”; but the Compendium, under the authority of the Church, teaches that an “explicit faith” in our Lord is not a prerequisite for supernatural faith (it may be implicit in one’s supernatural faith in God); and, like it or not, the Church has allowed her theologians to debate this issue for centuries and has never settled it, at least not dogmatically.

No one enters heaven without an explicit faith in our Lord, and the Compendium does not refute this dogma. If it is not a necessary disposition for justification, it will certainly be fulfilled one way or the other with the infusion of grace and the theological virtues (if at death); for, what passes between God and a soul at death cannot be known, though it would be rash to believe that a soul died in any other way than the way he lived. But the Compendium is not commenting on any of that, but is only telling us what is possible with God in “baptism of desire” (and what we normally associate with death).

While the caustic remarks about “salvation by sincerity” will surely follow, the Church teaches that this sincerity must consist of supernatural faith and a perfect charity - no exceptions.

This is where one may, I believe, if one cannot reconcile this in one’s own mind, make a valid mental reservation and seek a clarification from the Church on this confusing teaching, though it should be clear that the Church is teaching the same doctrine as many of the latter theologians (beginning from around the 16th century). And it is certain that there is no moral universal consensus. St. Liguori recognized the legitimacy of this theological opinion; however, even if he called the necessity of an explicit faith in our Lord the more common doctrine, and the one we should hold - and I agree; though the Church tells me that I cannot "reject" her teaching.

Those who call it “heresy” are rash - but hey, we're used to it. .

Btw, the part that Fr. Harrison says may be “proximate to heresy” is the belief “that certain non-Christians who follow the natural law can be saved because faith in Christ is implicit in whatever natural religious truths they do believe or whatever natural good acts they do perform.”

I agree, and neither Dominus Iesus, nor the Compendium, says this.

MarianLibrarian wrote:

tornpage wrote: That's the Church, not a theologian, talking.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Compendium, as well as previous Catechisms, are not more authoritative than Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils...

The official approval of the CCC by Pope John Paul II states that the CCC is not intended to replace local catechisms. So, if a catechism is "the Church... talking" then we have a serious problem here in the States since the first edition of our Catechism said that God's covenant with the Jews remains "eternally valid for them". I've printed out the correction, folded it up and stuck it between the pages, and even blacked out the offensive sentence... but I can still read it.

And the first time you read that initial passage you probably said; “Oops, this can’t be true; it’s obviously a mistake”. And yes, the mistake was eventually fixed with a correction (wasn’t it Sungenis who was at least partially responsible for this?).

The CCC may not be intended to “replace” your local Catechism, but when there is a conflict in teaching, which one is the more authoritative?

Though still reformable, the Compendium’s teaching on explicit faith (or the lack thereof!) is of a slightly higher authority, though we can still make a mental reservation and seek (and hope for) a clarification.

MRyan wrote:

MarianLibrarian wrote:

tornpage wrote: That's the Church, not a theologian, talking.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Compendium, as well as previous Catechisms, are not more authoritative than Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils...

The official approval of the CCC by Pope John Paul II states that the CCC is not intended to replace local catechisms. So, if a catechism is "the Church... talking" then we have a serious problem here in the States since the first edition of our Catechism said that God's covenant with the Jews remains "eternally valid for them". I've printed out the correction, folded it up and stuck it between the pages, and even blacked out the offensive sentence... but I can still read it.

And the first time you read that initial passage you probably said; “Oops, this can’t be true; it’s obviously a mistake”. And yes, the mistake was eventually fixed with a correction (wasn’t it Sungenis who was at least partially responsible for this?).

The CCC may not be intended to “replace” your local Catechism, but when there is a conflict in teaching, which one is the more authoritative?

Though still reformable, the Compendium’s teaching on explicit faith (or the lack thereof!) is of a slightly higher authority, though we can still make a mental reservation and seek (and hope for) a clarification.

Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils are more authoritative than any catechisms.

I suspect Fr. Harrison had his paper removed from the SBC partly for revising, and partly out of fatigue, i.e., he was tired of fielding questions about it. I'll bet the "revision" goes on for a long, long time.

MarianLibrarian wrote:
Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils are more authoritative than any catechisms.

Now there's a rash and inaccurate statement.

Roguejim wrote:I suspect Fr. Harrison had his paper removed from the SBC partly for revising, and partly out of fatigue, i.e., he was tired of fielding questions about it. I'll bet the "revision" goes on for a long, long time.

I still have my written copy.

I never really could get my arms around the part about “near-death” experiences. Weird.

Mike,

Father Harrison's use of near death experiences made perfect sense to me as experiential and factual evidence supporting the view that God reveals Christ and leads to explicit faith in Him before death those who "can be saved without knowing Christ."

But, again, why the Church never comes out and says that "explicitly" drives me crazy - if that in fact is the "Church's" view and the truth. Perhaps it's just fittingly implicit on the subject of implicit faith.

MRyan wrote:

MarianLibrarian wrote:
Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils are more authoritative than any catechisms.

Now there's a rash and inaccurate statement.

Hardly. Remember, the CCC is the second edition of JP II's catechism. Some important statements were changed from the first edition of his catechism, such as the Church's teaching on the death penalty. If the first edition was reformable, why not the second? I would agree, in the hierarchy of truths, JP II's CCC ranks below that of an ecumenical council, and especially, the three foundational creeds of the Church.

MRyan wrote:

MarianLibrarian wrote:
Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils are more authoritative than any catechisms.

Now there's a rash and inaccurate statement.

I think our fundamental disagreement is summed up in these above posts. How is that statement of Marian Librarian inaccurate?

The same authority that approved the CCC, approved three EENS communities:

http://sistersofstbenedictcenter.org/index.html
http://abbey.org/
http://saintbenedict.com

How do you explain that?

MRyan wrote:No one enters heaven without an explicit faith in our Lord, and the Compendium does not refute this dogma.

Nowhere in the CCC is this dogma reaffirmed or even stated. But, does it matter? Is the Deposit of Faith some sort of "silly putty" that Popes can play with and remake in their own image?? Remember, it was JP II who said that the Church can pull doctrines out of the Deposit of Faith, "both new and old," like the Deposit of Faith was some Lucky Charms cereal box or McDonald's Happy Meal.

MRyan wrote:

MarianLibrarian wrote:
Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils are more authoritative than any catechisms.

Now there's a rash and inaccurate statement.

How so?

Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils cannot be revised. Catechisms are revised all the time. Besides, as RashaLampa has quoted so often: "The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess." Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 26. (I own this book, have verified the quote... and read through the book in its entirety since it's pretty short)

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:No one enters heaven without an explicit faith in our Lord, and the Compendium does not refute this dogma.

Nowhere in the CCC is this dogma reaffirmed or even stated. But, does it matter? Is the Deposit of Faith some sort of "silly putty" that Popes can play with and remake in their own image?? Remember, it was JP II who said that the Church can pull doctrines out of the Deposit of Faith, "both new and old," like the Deposit of Faith was some Lucky Charms cereal box or McDonald's Happy Meal.

I discerned this dogma from a McDonalds Happy Meal, "You get what you pay for"

The probem isn't the pulling of doctrines from the deposit of faith, it's the pushing them back in again or changing them once they're defined.

MRyan wrote: In other words, both texts teach the same doctrine that holds: “The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism” that can assure salvation, which is the same thing as saying “without [baptism] they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven”.

No, MRyan, actually you are incorrect. One statement(the fallible one) leaves the door open to possibilities outside of Water baptism. The other statement(the infallible one) keeps the door shut to possibilities outside of Water baptism.

So the Feeneyites choose the infallible teachings , while you and most of today's modernists hang your hats on the fallible teachings . There can't be 2 truths. Only one of these teachings is correct. All Catholics are to accept and believe what is taught infallibly . Also, a Catholic does not need anyone to interpret any infallible statement since such statements need no interpretation from others. Who then interprets the interpreter? Who then interprets he who interpreted the interpreter,..etc...etc...
A Catholic is only to go to the infallible source document itself to know what the Church teaches. Saint Athanasius didn't need the "ordinary magisterium" and "theologians" of his day to know what the "Universal Magisterium" had always taught. Instead, he had gone straight to the source and did not listen to the "Interpreters" whom, at that time, was teaching the Arian heresy/apostacy that Jesus is not God Almighty.

All Catholics today should follow Saint Athanasius' example

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote: In other words, both texts teach the same doctrine that holds: “The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism” that can assure salvation, which is the same thing as saying “without [baptism] they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven”.

No, MRyan, actually you are incorrect. One statement(the fallible one) leaves the door open to possibilities outside of Water baptism. The other statement(the infallible one) keeps the door shut to possibilities outside of Water baptism.

So the Feeneyites choose the infallible teachings , while you and most of today's modernists hang your hats on the fallible teachings . There can't be 2 truths. Only one of these teachings is correct. All Catholics are to accept and believe what is taught infallibly . Also, a Catholic does not need anyone to interpret any infallible statement since such statements need no interpretation from others. Who then interprets the interpreter? Who then interprets he who interpreted the interpreter,..etc...etc...
A Catholic is only to go to the infallible source document itself to know what the Church teaches. Saint Athanasius didn't need the "ordinary magisterium" and "theologians" of his day to know what the "Universal Magisterium" had always taught. Instead, he had gone straight to the source and did not listen to the "Interpreters" whom, at that time, was teaching the Arian heresy/apostacy that Jesus is not God Almighty.

All Catholics today should follow Saint Athanasius' example

Let's do that:

How about the New Catechism?

Recent catechisms of the Church explain that the infant dying without Baptism can hope for the mercy of God. This is not a contradiction of Church tradition because as we have explained above, Limbo is a merciful part of God’s salvific plan. “The present or ‘current’ teaching of the Church does not admit of a development that is either a reversal or a contradiction.” (Pope John Paul II)

Would any of the resident Feeneyites care to take a guess from whence this citation was taken?

Give up?

Why, it was taken from an article titled “Unity in Truth”, from the SBC, Still River, MA (Mancipia Press).

(http://www.saintbenedict.com/apostolates/mancipia-press/8-pointpamphlet/31-point-january-2001.html)

And, according to Rasha, “The same authority that approved the CCC, approved three Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus communities”.

Oh dear.

Some of you will notice that the article seems to skip the part which says: "and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism".

But, to be consistent, the SBC commentary would also have to say:

This is not a contradiction of Church tradition because ... “The present or ‘current’ teaching of the Church does not admit of a development that is either a reversal or a contradiction.” (Pope John Paul II)

After all, the SBC (MA) is in communion with the pope who said "the Church does not admit of a development that is either a reversal or a contradiction.”

Just a word on St. Athanasius: He remained in communion with his Pope and Pope Liberius never lost the Catholic Faith by falling into the Arian Heresy.

So, C_T, go ahead and follow St. Athanasius, but if you think you can use him for justifying a condemnation of Peter for heresy (and severing communion with him); think again - it never happened; it is a fantasy of many rad-Trads of the sede persuasion.

MRyan, notice this part:

How about the New Catechism?

Recent catechisms of the Church explain that the infant dying without Baptism can hope for the mercy of God. This is not a contradiction of Church tradition because as we have explained above, Limbo is a merciful part of God’s salvific plan. “The present or ‘current’ teaching of the Church does not admit of a development that is either a reversal or a contradiction.” (Pope John Paul II

RashaLampa wrote:MRyan, notice this part:

How about the New Catechism?

Recent catechisms of the Church explain that the infant dying without Baptism can hope for the mercy of God. This is not a contradiction of Church tradition because as we have explained above, Limbo is a merciful part of God’s salvific plan. “The present or ‘current’ teaching of the Church does not admit of a development that is either a reversal or a contradiction.” (Pope John Paul II

This is a wonderful article and I thank MRyan for posting it! It has certainly caused me to reconsider my position on the CCC. As a follower of Father Feeney's ideas, I am certainly willing to consider Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire as being theological possibilities but also as being, in reality, actual "null sets," that is, completely devoid of any human beings, the appeal for this being the One and Triune God's sovereignty over all of His Creation. As for children who die without Baptism, "their way of salvation" would be Limbo, that is, salvation from the fires of Hell. I think that Limbo is a better expression of the Catholic Faith than the view of Saint Augustine who, of course, consigned such infants to the fires of Hell, albeit, with the mildest of the mildest of punishment.

RashaLampa wrote:MRyan, notice this part:

How about the New Catechism?

Recent catechisms of the Church explain that the infant dying without Baptism can hope for the mercy of God. This is not a contradiction of Church tradition because as we have explained above, Limbo is a merciful part of God’s salvific plan. “The present or ‘current’ teaching of the Church does not admit of a development that is either a reversal or a contradiction.” (Pope John Paul II

Precisely, and I'm not sure what I am supposed to take notice of since I posted the same citation within the SBC article. I only added that “The present or ‘current’ teaching of the Church" "allows" us to "hope" for their salvation based strictly on God's mercy and His tenderness towards children, without suggesting that the Church knows of another means of salvation; and that this teaching of "hope", the SBC would agree, "does not admit of a development that is either a reversal or a contradiction."

And yes, Limbo is indeed a part of God's merciful plan.

It is De Fide Catholica that infants and young children who die without Baptism are forever excluded from the Beatific Vision. Given this, the CCC allows us to hope that such children's "salvation" is salvation from the Fires of Hell. The Catechism states that the Church "does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude" because there is no other way of eternal life other than Baptism. (If there was, then the Church would know about it, a tautology.) Paragraphs 1258, 1259, and 1260 are empty sets and represent theological possibilities only but no actualities. Paragraph 1261 endorses Limbo.

Jehanne wrote:It is De Fide Catholica that infants and young children who die without Baptism are forever excluded from the Beatific Vision. Given this, the CCC allows us to hope that such children's "salvation" is salvation from the Fires of Hell. The Catechism states that the Church "does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude" because there is no other way of eternal life other than Baptism. (If there was, then the Church would know about it, a tautology.) Paragraphs 1258, 1259, and 1260 are empty sets and represent theological possibilities only but no actualities. Paragraph 1261 endorses Limbo.

I have no problem with this, since you at least acknowledge the Church’s authority in “allowing hope” without contradicting or changing the dogma.

However, even IF God saved even one un-baptized infant, this would not contradict “that infants and young children who die without Baptism are forever excluded from the Beatific Vision”, for God would have supplied the very baptism of regeneration required for eternal life.

God is the author of life and of time, and He is not bound by our conception of either. The documented eye-witness accounts of the saints in raising certain un-baptized souls from their graves for the express purpose of baptism, for example, gives witness to God’s omnipotence over all such matters like the “immediacy” of death in the temporal context of eternity. Why, for example, did our Lord say that Lazarus was “asleep” when he was already in the tomb for four days; and, as his sister said, he already “stinketh” from bodily decomposition?

And yet we know of the Pharisees who declare “No, the Church has, ‘solemnly defined’ that every soul at death is immediately judged and consigned to either the eternal fate of heaven (and purgatory) or to hell”.

Ah, but Death, where is thy sting?!

Sure, I have no problem whatsoever with the One and Triune God raising dead infants and children to have them baptized. I may differ with you in that I believe and profess that it is de fide that such is the sole and only means of eternal life for infants/young children. The Church, of course, knows of no other means, because there are no other means.

You cannot “differ” with me when I profess the same truth of the Church. She knows of only one means - de fide.

Where we differ is that I recognize, with the Church, that God may or may not raise one of His un-baptized elect from the dead - He may regenerate a soul into the justice of His love by whatever means He so "desires".

MRyan wrote:You cannot “differ” with me when I profess the same truth of the Church. She knows of only one means - de fide.

Where we differ is that I recognize, with the Church, that God may or may not raise one of His un-baptized elect from the dead - He may regenerate a soul into the justice of His love by whatever means He so "desires".

We do differ. Yes, the One and Triune is not bound by His Sacraments, but he has bounded Himself by His Word:

"Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.'" (John 3:5, RSV)

Our Lord's words admit of no exceptions.

Consider this:

1) No triangle exists on a 2-dimensional surface whose 3 interior angels do not sum to 180 degrees.

2) While we do not know of any triangles on a 2-dimensional surface whose 3 interior angels do not sum to 180 degrees, we can hope that such triangles do exist.

While the One and Triune is infinite in all respects and could have created a Universe in which triangles on flat surfaces have angels that sum to something other than 180 degrees, in this Universe at least, Number 2 is demonstrably false. The same is true of Baptism, and its absolute necessity for everlasting life.

As for being defined de fide, the Council of Carthage made Catholic doctrine forever clear (or at least until Christ comes again) on that point.

Jehanne,

Theology is not a mathematical equation. You can’t use that example about triangles and baptism of desire/baptism of blood. Otherwise 3 Persons equaling One true God would not be a mystery we believe on faith. We would understand it all clearly because it would all add up.

The Catechism states that the Church "does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude" because there is no other way of eternal life other than Baptism. (If there was, then the Church would know about it, a tautology

This statement isn’t true. There are several things that the Church does not know because the Holy Spirit has not yet revealed them to the Church. Including the details of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood and salvation. The Church only knows for sure what the Holy Spirit reveals. So just because the Church knows of no other means, it doesn’t mean that there isn’t any other means. The Church tells us that we in the Church can legitimately hope and pray to our merciful and just God.

Hope this helps.

Elisa wrote:There are several things that the Church does not know because the Holy Spirit has not yet revealed them to the Church

Revelation ended with the last Apostle.

(See MRyan, why Cardinal Newman's ideas are problematic?)

Rasha,
I'm not talking about NEW public revelation. I'm talking about Sacred Tradition. Which includes the Holy Spirit revealing details and further explanations about already existing revealed truths.

If this was not the case, then we would have no further defining of doctrine in the last 2,000 years. Protestants use this truth about "no new public revelation after the Apostles" to mean the Church can't make any further statements after the Apostles. We know that is not true and Sacred Tradition includes the truths that the Holy Spirit defines and explains. Like explaining the Immaculate Conception. Like maybe one day explaining Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood more fully.

Night.

Elisa wrote:Jehanne,

Theology is not a mathematical equation. You can’t use that example about triangles and baptism of desire/baptism of blood. Otherwise 3 Persons equaling One true God would not be a mystery we believe on faith. We would understand it all clearly because it would all add up.

The Catechism states that the Church "does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude" because there is no other way of eternal life other than Baptism. (If there was, then the Church would know about it, a tautology

This statement isn’t true. There are several things that the Church does not know because the Holy Spirit has not yet revealed them to the Church. Including the details of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood and salvation. The Church only knows for sure what the Holy Spirit reveals. So just because the Church knows of no other means, it doesn’t mean that there isn’t any other means. The Church tells us that we in the Church can legitimately hope and pray to our merciful and just God.

Hope this helps.

Sure, I can use mathematics, logic, philosophy, etc., to expound upon Catholic dogma and doctrine. In fact, that was Saint Thomas' great accomplishment, the merging of Aristotelian logic with the Deposit of Faith. Truth proceeds from one source, the One and Triune God. God is a Perfect Being, infinite in all respects. He can do anything which comes from His perfection. Sure, He can save someone without Baptism if He wanted to. But, He cannot lie nor can He do evil, and while He is not bound by His Sacraments, He is bound by His Word. We can accept Baptism of Desire & Blood as theological possibilities while rejecting both as actual realities, as numerous evidence testifies to the fact that God will bring the sacrament of Baptism to anyone who truly desires it. Baptism of Desire & Blood were never defined by the Church, nor was the denial of either doctrine ever condemned. The case of Peter Abelard is a prime example of this.

RashaLampa wrote:

Elisa wrote:There are several things that the Church does not know because the Holy Spirit has not yet revealed them to the Church

Revelation ended with the last Apostle.

(See MRyan, why Cardinal Newman's ideas are problematic?)

No, Rasha, the only problem is with your lack of comprehension. Elisa was not suggesting that the Reveled truths on the Trinity or on Baptism were not already "Revealed" with the death of the last Apostle, but only that some of their mysteries will always remain just that - mysteries.

Do you see how you simply turn what Elisa said on its head because of your own failings to recognize the truth of what she said?

And your comment about Blessed Cardinal Newman simply reflects your incomplete and even false understanding of the the very Catholic doctrine on the "development of doctrine"; as if this true doctrine is somehow opposed the dogma that Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

Perhaps you should take up a little self-study on what the Church actually teaches in this regard?

Uh, I think that perhaps you ought to read more:

"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." (Chapter 4, Canon 14, First Vatican Council)

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#CANONS

We "Feeneyites" are free to interpret Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as it was forever defined at the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence.

Jehanne wrote:Uh, I think that perhaps you ought to read more:

"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." (Chapter 4, Canon 14, First Vatican Council)

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#CANONS

We "Feeneyites" are free to interpret Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as it was forever defined at the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence.

I can read just fine; thank you. I can also comprehend.

For you to suggest that your “interpretation” of a sacred dogma as it was once declared; with your “interpretation” being in stated opposition to that which is presented by the magisterial authority of Christ’s true Vicar and the authority of Holy Mother Church as she herself understands her own dogma "as it was once declared", is nothing but pure Protestant hubris and anarchy, not to mention heresy.

We "Feeneyites" are free to interpret Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as it was forever defined at the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence.

You don't interpret it the way it was defined. The Legislator and appointed authority determines how it was and more importantly is defined, since it is not a dead law but a living and binding law, and still subject for its interpretation to a living authority with real power and jurisdiction.

Obviously the Church understands and has understood the Lord's binding decree in John 3:5 as embracing a regeneration by the Spirit, for Trent indicated that one must be justified by the "laver or the desire thereof," AS IT IS WRITTEN, "unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."

Imagine a law passed by Congress and the intent of Congress as interpreted by Congress itself (in terms of the Church's own edicts) or by the authority appointed to interpret that intent, like the Supreme Court (in terms of the Church telling us what Our Lord's words in Scripture mean), being irrelevant as to the meaning of the law!

Scratch that . . . unfortunately, no imagination is necessary, at least not here.

tornpage

You can't have your theological cake and eat it, too! Facts are facts. Father Feeney died in full communion with Rome, and his followers are in full communion with Rome, also:

http://catholicism.org/our-status-in-the-church.html

You can appeal to the present Magisterium all you want, but as already been posted, Vatican II nor anything since has taught the salvation of non-Catholics or that infants can enter into the eternal beatitude without Baptism. We "Feeneyites" are absolutely free to continue to teach, hold, believe, and profess the actual impossibility of both ideas. Theological possibilities, yes; realized actualities, no.

tornpage wrote:

We "Feeneyites" are free to interpret Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as it was forever defined at the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence.

You don't interpret it the way it was defined. The Legislator and appointed authority determines how it was and more importantly is defined, since it is not a dead law but a living and binding law, and still subject for its interpretation to a living authority with real power and jurisdiction.

Obviously the Church understands and has understood the Lord's binding decree in John 3:5 as embracing a regeneration by the Spirit, for Trent indicated that one must be justified by the "laver or the desire thereof," AS IT IS WRITTEN, "unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."

Imagine a law passed by Congress and the intent of Congress as interpreted by Congress itself (in terms of the Church's own edicts) or by the authority appointed to interpret that intent, like the Supreme Court (in terms of the Church telling us what Our Lord's words in Scripture mean), being irrelevant as to the meaning of the law!

Scratch that . . . unfortunately, no imagination is necessary, at least not here.

tornpage

The Church has never interpreted it that way (i.ie., your way). You cannot point to one document that says otherwise.

Duplicate post. (My mouse is broke.)

nor anything since has taught the salvation of non-Catholics

You must live in Oz. Do you see the Strawman when you look out your front window? Do you look out your front window when you post here?

Because this guy or gal who teaches the salvation of non-Catholics has not appeared on this forum.

tornpage wrote:

nor anything since has taught the salvation of non-Catholics

You must live in Oz. Do you see the Strawman when you look out your front window? Do you look out your front window when you post here?

Because this guy or gal who teaches the salvation of non-Catholics has not appeared on this forum.

So, what's your point? We "Feeneyites" are in full communion with Rome.

Trent

Session VI, CHAPTER IV.

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

This is going to be my last post to the forum for a while (or at least until I get a different mouse, now on order from Walmart.) In any case, we've been down this path before. I cannot do better than the St. Benedict Center, so here you go:

http://catholicism.org/desire-justification-salvation.html

I will be back in a few weeks. Until then...

Jehanne wrote:

tornpage wrote:

nor anything since has taught the salvation of non-Catholics

You must live in Oz. Do you see the Strawman when you look out your front window? Do you look out your front window when you post here?

Because this guy or gal who teaches the salvation of non-Catholics has not appeared on this forum.

So, what's your point? We "Feeneyites" are in full communion with Rome.

Not only do you appear not to be in communion with Rome, you are not in communion with the mother-ship of "Feenyites" (the St. Benedict Center, NH).

Go ahead and run this by them, where you said:

Traditional Catholics should reject the CCC because it contains, at a minimum, theological errors, perhaps even formal heresies. Applying baptism of desire to those who do not have an explicit vow to receive it is a formal heresy. The Council of Florence forever nipped in the bud that one.

I think they would tell you to drop the "We".

Or, they just might caution you against such rash accusations, and encourage you to keep up the good work!

My feeling is that with friends like you, Fr. Feeney doesn't need any enemies.

Popes can err. Even the present Pope, in his most recent book, stated that. As I said, the CCC is not the first edition, but the second. Compare the two sometime and judge for yourself. I did not agree with Pope Benedict's comments here recently on the use of condoms, and I am thankful that the CDF clarified his remarks. IMHO, not far enough, but it's a start. So, traditional Catholics can hope for a third edition of the Catechism, until then, the Roman Catechism is just fine (even the section on Baptism of Desire.)

Jehanne wrote:Popes can err. Even the present Pope, in his most recent book, stated that. As I said, the CCC is not the first edition, but the second. Compare the two sometime and judge for yourself. I did not agree with Pope Benedict's comments here recently on the use of condoms, and I am thankful that the CDF clarified his remarks. IMHO, not far enough, but it's a start. So, traditional Catholics can hope for a third edition of the Catechism, until then, the Roman Catechism is just fine (even the section on Baptism of Desire.)

No one said that a pope cannot “err”; but you have accused the Pope and the CCC of teaching formal heresy.

I’m sorry, but I must have missed where his “condoms” comments ended up in the authentic and ordinary teaching document called the CCC.

It’s amazing that you don’t know the difference between error and “formal heresy”. Let us know when the third edition comes out which will surely “correct” the “formal heresy” of St. Thomas Aquinas on the “implicit desire” for the sacrament. Until then, the CCC is just fine, but should be "rejected" by all traditional Catholics for teaching “formal heresy”.

Now that you’ve been found out, would you care to formally retract your charge of “formal heresy” since you now say that the CCC is just fine?

You can’t have it both ways.