UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

George Brenner wrote: Welcome back, Duckbill. Your post are very important to the discussions.

Mike, thanks for blowing my cover. I really do miss sarcasm. I mean just when more and more people are seeing the importance and power of confession and more and more priests are getting a fire for teaching the faith, and more and more Catholics are speaking up, and more and more Catholics really want to please and show love for our Saviour , and more and more Catholics real want to learn the faith, I totally forgot that we really should be cheering for the crisis of faith to grow and prosper in the Church and not its return to calmer seas.

Wow, George, that was sarcasm with a capital “S”.

Problem is, you might be wee bit of out of practice since I don’t know who it is directed at as I don’t know anyone on this forum who ignores the positive green shoots while "cheering for the crisis of faith to grow and prosper”. Of course, a certain brand of noxious sedeism seems to relish every perceived misstep as it gives them a reason to attack the Church and to justify their false position, but I doubt that’s what you had in mind.

Guess I just don’t get it. Perhaps that’s not a bad thing.

Mike,

Not to worry. I have sent sarcasm back from whence it came. It is intended for the noxious of heart and mind who would throw the baby out with the dirty bath water. Some are not happy unless they are miserable.

Duckbill,

Actually, what I said was pretty clear, or so I thought.

Let's try this again. You were going to tell us how we can learn of the Church's true understanding of "membership" in the Mystical Body; and, after saying “the Church hasn't made a clearly infallible pronouncement on who is a member” (at least not “definitively”), you began by citing the dogmatic prescription of Pope Boniface who declared that there is no salvation or remission of sins outside the Church.

You then appeared to embellish his words by telling us that they mean “there is no remission of sins outside membership in the Church”.

So I asked you how you went from what he actually said to your interpretation thereof, and I'd still like to know.

If would appear that you arrived at this understanding by way of syllogism whereby you added your preconceived understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and then simply re-wrote the formula to reflect your understanding that says Pope Boniface is referring to no salvation nor remission of sins outside of actual “membership” in the Church (with “membership” meaning “1.] laver of regeneration and [2.] profess the true faith”) while leaving Body-unity and unity in faith and government out of he equation (which is why I cited the entire prescription of Pope Pius XII).

As to your question, "Are you saying the pope here is not speaking about persons? 'outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…'”, I would respond by saying that is exactly what the Pope is speaking about.

And finally, you ask, "If a person is not a member can he be inside the Church?", I think my presentation of Church teaching was quite clear; and so I asked you "Cannot one be 'joined to' or 'united with'” the Church through the bonds of faith and charity, as the Church teaches?"

The reason for this question is actually pretty crucial, for if where I think you are going with this is accurate, you are suggesting that a defined dogmatic prescription of the solemn magisterium is opposed to the ordinary magisterial, and even universal teaching of the Church.

However, to avoid getting ahead of ourselves, for now a simple yes or no to my question will suffice; I simply want to know where you stand. If you haven't changed any of your stripes, I already know; but I just want to set the record straight so we can walk through this on the same sheets of music reflective of our respective understanding of Church teaching.

I actually agree with the process you would like to employ; but, as you can see, we already ran into a snag with your first piece of dogmatic evidence, and the "interpretation" thereof.

I would suggest that we take the words "as they are written" before embellishing them with our our own fallible understanding. We may employ syllogisms, but not before we define our terms and not without the guidance of the authoritative, authentic and living Magisterium (which will represent another problem of "interpretation", just wait and see).

And thanks again for finding St. Josephat; and for refreshing my fading memory.

columba wrote:Mike the Church has clearly defined who is NOT a member and done so with all the dogmatic authority she could muster. Those outside the visible ecclesiastical body are Not members and cannot be saved. Jews, Pagans, heretics, apostates and schismatics.

Are you shocked at that? So shocked that you refuse to believe it?
Pope Eugene IV was not pampering to emotionalism when he proclaimed this dogma. He was stating the absolute, unadulerated, unapologetic, divinely revealed truth. End of story.

Spoken like the true arbiter of tradition and dogmatic truth.

However, I asked you produce the evidence to back up your assertion that “The Church has already defined dogmatically who is, and who is not a member” of the Catholic Church and you are only half-way there; now, you only have to produce the dogmatic definition that defines who IS a member of the Church.

What are you waiting for?

And, it is most certainly true that Jews, Pagans, heretics, apostates and schismatics are NOT members of the one true Church of Christ, and none of those can be saved unless before death they are “joined to” the Church. Now, why in the world would you think I have a problem with that? What is there to be “shocked” about and why in heavens name would I “refuse to believe it” when I hold it with divine and catholic faith?

Of course, we both know what you really mean, and that is why you infer that I refuse to believe your embellished Feeneyite fundamentalist spin on the dogma that positively precludes any of the aforementioned souls who are outside of communion with the Church from being “joined to” the Church before death by grace and a conversion of heart through the bonds of faith and charity should an external visible membership be obstructed through no fault of their own.

You know, the same embellished Feeneyite fundamentalist spin on the dogma that positively precludes the non-water baptized martyr who professes the Catholic faith whole and inviolate and dies burning in desire and in that true charity asked for by our Lord from being “joined to” the Church in voto before his blood-drenched death for Christ.

See, he never had the opportunity to be in visible union with the Church where he could participate in its sacramental life, so he is damned to hell; yet, you can’t show us where the dogma actually says this as you “refuse to believe” the Church’s own magisterial teaching on this matter. Shocking.

And, as you also told us, Pope Eugene IV did not really buy into what he declared in the same Council (moved to Basel) when he said that his prescriptions take away nothing from the common teachings of the Doctors and the theological schools who discourse on these matters (such as baptism of blood); he didn't actually mean that it would apply here, for he was actually condemning the universal common teaching.

Gosh, being the true arbiter of tradition and dogmatic truth is just awesome, I don't know how you do it.

And it is the same embellished Feeneyite fundamentalist spin that can say with a straight face that an adult Orthodox member of a particular Eastern Church who is not in visible communion with the Catholic Church “remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally”, while at the same time “‘he is not an external member’ … of the Catholic Church”.

Golly, you are really confused. How’s the hole-digging coming? You should be punching through to China at any moment.

So, once again, show us where “The Church has already defined dogmatically who is … a member” of the Catholic Church.

As the arbiter of tradition and of dogmatic truth, you said the Church dogmatically defined it, so it must be true; and inquiring minds would like to know if you can back up the chutzpah with the dogmatic definition.

Don’t be shy, just do it.

Oh, and are you absolutely certain I am not the pope? I mean, if you don’t really know who the pope is, how can you know who the pope is not?

And I was just getting used to the idea; and, as you can tell, our old friend simple faith was crushed by this new revelation.

columba wrote:
I do believe however, that the denial of the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus dogma is at the heart of every single problem within todays Church. The denial [of the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus dogma] in all it's forms, from baptism of blood extending to embrace baptism of desire ... What can I conclude? All I know is, that if one denies even one dogma of the faith, he denies the whole faith. What each one concludes from that is between their own conscience and God.

Here it is in black and white, the Supreme arbiter of tradition and dogmatic truth has publicly accused the Roman Catholic Church, and the universal moral consensus and common teaching of the Doctors and theologians, as well as the universal teaching of the Bishops in union with the Roman Pontiff, of having denied the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus; and thus, of having denied the whole faith.

Columba then says that this heresy “is between” the Church’s “conscience and God”; but, as for columba, as the Supreme arbiter of tradition and dogmatic truth, his position is secure; the same columba who said Mryan is not the pope; for it is obvious who has taken for his own the mantle of Supreme Authority and Primacy of the Roman Pontiff in all doctrinal matters of faith and tradition, for columba (“We) … are the guarantors of this”.

Really, columba, you should stop playing this fence-sitting game and be done with it.

Mike Im out of towm today so using my phone to write this but cant wait to reply when I get back. This will be too easy as I could poimt out an eror in almost every sentence of yours. Stay tunef.
: )

Hello Columba,


The think that most of your arguments are against these simple words.... 847"those too may achieve eternal salvation.337" It does not say will and to cross over the line of truth and understanding with private interpretation of how the Church explains and understands these words and to in any way question or impede the will of God , which is known to Him in these matters of Salvation is always to be in dangerous territory. Many have tried and failed to grasp or correctly understand at the risk of serious or fatal errors for one's soul and others they influence.


JMJ,

George

Let me try that last post one more time......

Hello Columba,


I think that most of your arguments are against these simple words.... from the CCC: 847 "those too may achieve eternal salvation.337" The phrase says ' may ' it does not say ' will.' We should always, with no exceptions let the Church explain, in Her official teaching capacity how 'may' is to be understood. Private interpretation is dangerous. Furthermore to question or in any way challenge the will of God in these matters of Salvation is wrong and sinful. Many of the hypothetical examples you have cited in earlier posts are only hypothetical and if true would only be known to God and His perfect will. This is in perfect harmony with Church teaching on No salvation Outside the Catholic Church.

Columba,

While you are pondering how you are going to easily expose my glaring errors ("an error in almost every sentence”), I just wanted to add something to your spin that should be addressed.

When previously asked to demonstrate where in Cantate Domino (or anyplace else) the Church has dogmatically defined that a non-baptized, non-Jew, non-pagan, non-heretic and non-schismatic convert who professes the Catholic faith whole and inviolate and who dies burning in desire to be united to Christ (and His Church) in charity, is positively precluded from being “joined to” the ecclesiastical Body of the Church Militant Church in voto while being united to Christ and His Body in the bonds of faith and charity, you said that the dogmatic definition “implies” that the same martyr cannot be saved without water baptism and external membership.

And that sums up Feeneyite ecclesiology to a “t”; for, despite all their talk about not needing to interpret a dogmatic definition because it is already understood exactly as it is written, it turns out “as is written” must be embellished with what is “implied” by syllogism (e.g., see Duckbill’s interpretation of Pope Boniface’s Unam Sanctum) in order to grasp its true meaning as the Church has always understood it, even if what Feeneyites say is “dogmatically implied” in the definition is NOT what the Church actually teaches when she tells us exactly how she understands it (and has always understood it) in a multiplicity of various official magisterial documents that happen to reflect the same common universal understanding of the Doctors and the theological schools who discourse on these matters.

And that leaves us with the rigorist Feeneyite “dogma” that says “The denial [of the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus dogma] in all it's forms, from baptism of blood extending to embrace baptism of desire ... What can I conclude? All I know is, that if one denies even one dogma of the faith, he denies the whole faith.”

An “error” in almost every sentence ... whose sentence is the citation above? I guess Columba will qualify his accusation of heresy against the Church with some fall-back position that says the Church and her universal cadre of Doctors and theologians are only guilty of “material error” since they are obviously blissfully unaware of the fact that the universal magisterial teaching on baptism of blood/baptism of desire is a “denial of the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus dogma”.

But then again, who knows; he has already accused Popes Paul VI, JPII and BXVI of teaching a heretical doctrine (which remains heretical until proven otherwise, according to columba's private butchery of Auctorem Fidei) in the documents of VCII and the CDF on the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church as it relates to The Universal Church and Particular Churches.

This should be good.

Well Mike I forgot how much you just like to write a load of words which clouds the subject without addressing a point clearly brought up.
you wrote:

And finally, you ask, "If a person is not a member can he be inside
the Church?", I think my presentation of Church teaching was quite
clear; and so I asked you "Cannot one be 'joined to' or 'united with'”
the Church through the bonds of faith and charity, as the Church
teaches?"

You answered a question with a question. ??? You are more Irish than Columba. (sorry Columba, a person who is Irish I asked him "Why do the Irish answer questions with a question?" He responed: "Do we?" )

I was innocently focusing on what I thought was a major point in the discussion but you insist there is a snag on my first point lightly touched, that some how I am in serious error for accepting a dogmatic statement is referring to non members of the Church. That membership=possible salvation but no membership=no salvation. Church membership=possible forgiveness of sins but no membership= no remission of sins.



So again how is a person inside the Church without membership?

duckbill wrote:Well Mike I forgot how much you just like to write a load of words which clouds the subject without addressing a point clearly brought up.
you wrote:

And finally, you ask, "If a person is not a member can he be inside the Church?", I think my presentation of Church teaching was quite clear; and so I asked you "Cannot one be 'joined to' or 'united with'” the Church through the bonds of faith and charity, as the Church teaches?"

You answered a question with a question. ??? You are more Irish than Columba. (sorry Columba, a person who is Irish I asked him "Why do the Irish answer questions with a question?" He responed: "Do we?" )

I was innocently focusing on what I thought was a major point in the discussion but you insist there is a snag on my first point lightly touched, that some how I am in serious error for accepting a dogmatic statement is referring to non members of the Church. That membership=possible salvation but no membership=no salvation. Church membership=possible forgiveness of sins but no membership= no remission of sins.

So again how is a person inside the Church without membership?

Now wait a minute, Duckbill, I haven’t clouded any subject and I most certainly addressed the very point being brought up (how the Church defines "membership") by asking you directly “how does one go from “we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…” to “So there is no remission of sins outside membership in the Church”; and, rather than answering my question, you responded with a series of questions - the very "Irish" thing you accuse me of!

You asked me:

Are you saying the pope here is not speaking about persons? "outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…”

If a person is not a member can he be inside the Church?

I answered both questions while my original question remains unanswered. Yes, my response to your last question was both a statement of magisterial teaching and a question as to whether you accept this teaching.

And now you accuse me of saying that you are "some how ... in serious error for accepting a dogmatic statement is referring to non members of the Church."

I didn't say any such thing, so why are you jumping the gun?

And what is this "error" I am accused of laying on you supposed to mean:

That membership=possible salvation but no membership=no salvation. Church membership=possible forgiveness of sins but no membership= no remission of sins.

Is that how the Church defines "membership", by syllogism where one must assume that your understanding of being "inside" the Church is identical to external membership in the ecclesiastical Body of the Church Militant?

As I said, you appear to be embellishing the dogmatic pronouncement of Pope Boniface by adding the word “membership” to his formula, and then presume to suggest to us that no one can be “inside” the Church without being a visible external member thereof, where nowhere have you produced the dogmatic teaching (and not even the ordinary magisterial teaching) that says any such thing; while I can produce reams of magisterial teaching that says one may in fact be united to Christ (and to His Body, and thus, “inside” the Church) by the bonds of faith and charity, while being united to the visible Body in voto.

Now, will you answer my original question and tell us “how does one go from 'we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…' to "So there is no remission of sins outside membership in the Church”?

If you can give me a direct answer this time, rather than another question and another unsubstantiated syllogism, it would be appreciated – thanks.

Hehehe Duckbill. I did warn you.

columba wrote:Hehehe Duckbill. I did warn you.

Hehehe, warned him about what? Holding you accountable to what you say you are going to prove in respect to the Church's dogmatic formulas and infallible teachings?

By asking you to demonstrate where the Church has ever dogmatically defined "membership"?

By asking by what authority does someone add words to a dogmatic definition by imposing an unsubstantiated syllogism?

Seems I can't keep you focused, or get a straight answer, hehehe.

But, I can't wait for you to demonstrate my numerous errors. Of course, when I cite you verbatim, errors do abound.

Hehehe.

George Brenner wrote:
Let me try that last post one more time......

Hello Columba,


I think that most of your arguments are against these simple words.... from the CCC: 847 "those too may achieve eternal salvation.337" The phrase says ' may ' it does not say ' will.' We should always, with no exceptions let the Church explain, in Her official teaching capacity how 'may' is to be understood. Private interpretation is dangerous. Furthermore to question or in any way challenge the will of God in these matters of Salvation is wrong and sinful. Many of the hypothetical examples you have cited in earlier posts are only hypothetical and if true would only be known to God and His perfect will. This is in perfect harmony with Church teaching on No salvation Outside the Catholic Church.

Goerge,
If only that were the case and there were no other concerns.

The quote from the CCC you refer to highlights how the CCC has become the master of the unfinished sentence.
I'll quote it in full and then finish the sentence the last sentence properly. Those lazy writers must have taken a coffee break at the wrong time.

847 "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation." if, before death, they be baptized and enter the Catholic Church, for as the Truth Says, "Every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

duckbill wrote:
So again how is a person inside the Church without membership?

To keep this moving (I doubt that you are going to respond to my actual initial question), I'll answer your question:

Pope Pius XII, Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951:

“Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.

Duckbill, there’s your simple and very brief answer. Anyone who is in the state of grace is united to Christ, and His Body, the Church. And you know there are many more authoritative magisterial statements just like this.

And now let VCI give you a dogmatic reason as to why you should accept his teaching:

If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema. (Session 3: Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Canons, 4. Faith and reason, number 3)

If you do not accept the teaching of Pope Pius XII, would he not stand condemned by VCI for assigning a different sense to the dogma "from that which the Church has understood and understands:"?

Are you suggesting that your "opinion" that says no one may be translated to a state of sanctifying grace without actual water Baptism is as authoritative as the ordinary magisterial teaching of Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church?

Or, are you suggesting that the Church can teach error on a doctrinal matter of salvation -- and do so for centuries on end?

Isn’t it also true that “The proximate rule for right believing is the Magisterium of the Church”.

Now, let’s let Pope Pius XII, this time in Humani generis, Aug. 12, 1950, explain to you why you should accept his magisterial teaching:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine...

21. ... For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.”

Does that answer your question?

Sorry for the questions, but I keep asking them and can never get a straight answer from those Feeneyites who actually reject the teaching of Pope Pius XII.

And I bet you will not break with tradition by answering my questions that beg for an answer. Columba runs from these questions by blowing smoke around them, will you do the same?

Some things never change, but, you might surprise me.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:Mike the Church has clearly defined who is NOT a member and done so with all the dogmatic authority she could muster. Those outside the visible ecclesiastical body are Not members and cannot be saved. Jews, Pagans, heretics, apostates and schismatics.

Are you shocked at that? So shocked that you refuse to believe it?
Pope Eugene IV was not pampering to emotionalism when he proclaimed this dogma. He was stating the absolute, unadulerated, unapologetic, divinely revealed truth. End of story.

Spoken like the true arbiter of tradition and dogmatic truth.

However, I asked you produce the evidence to back up your assertion that “The Church has already defined dogmatically who is, and who is not a member” of the Catholic Church and you are only half-way there; now, you only have to produce the dogmatic definition that defines who IS a member of the Church.

What are you waiting for?

Here Goes:

But first may I remind you Mike that the texts you quote to uphold your theory of membership in veto are not themselves dogmatic proclamations.


You ask me to bring forth a dogmatic definition of declaring who "is" a member of the Church. I can supply you with such a definition from Trent (14)
"..the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body' (1 Cor. 12:13).”

From this we can see that the Church teaches that only those who have been once made members by the laver of baptism are to be considered as members of the Church.

And, it is most certainly true that Jews, Pagans, heretics, apostates and schismatics are NOT members of the one true Church of Christ, and none of those can be saved unless before death they are “joined to” the Church. Now, why in the world would you think I have a problem with that? What is there to be “shocked” about and why in heavens name would I “refuse to believe it” when I hold it with divine and catholic faith?

Because you also believe that the Jew, Pagan, heretic and apostate can be joined to the church in some way other than by acceptance of and incorporation into the one true faith.
I too believe that before death they can achieve this by repenting and converting; you maintain that they can still be joined to the Church without this explicit act of converting.

Of course, we both know what you really mean, and that is why you infer that I refuse to believe your embellished Feeneyite fundamentalist spin on the dogma that positively precludes any of the aforementioned souls who are outside of communion with the Church from being “joined to” the Church before death by grace and a conversion of heart through the bonds of faith and charity should an external visible membership be obstructed through no fault of their own.

And this my dear friend is nonsense. Why? Because as I've just shown above, If the external, visible membership be obstructed and is not relized, the Church will not consider such souls as her members. My Feeneyite fundamentalist spin is none other than what the Church defines as the truth. Fr Feeney was never censored for his "fundamentalist spin" which he died without retracting. Why was he not condemned for this "fundamentalist spin?" Because his "fundamentalist spin" was recognized as consistant with the teaching of the Church throughout all her prior history.

You know, the same embellished Feeneyite fundamentalist spin on the dogma that positively precludes the non-water baptized martyr who professes the Catholic faith whole and inviolate and dies burning in desire and in that true charity asked for by our Lord from being “joined to” the Church in voto before his blood-drenched death for Christ.

Emotionalism plays no part in the faith. That's why we're in this mess in the first place.If a teaching is too hard, reject it (or at least soften it). That's why we have, in our post Vat II Church, one that is awash with emotional wrecks from top to bottom.

See, he never had the opportunity to be in visible union with the Church where he could participate in its sacramental life, so he is damned to hell; yet, you can’t show us where the dogma actually says this as you “refuse to believe” the Church’s own magisterial teaching on this matter. Shocking.

Pope Pius IV (Iniunctum nobis 1565) I also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the new law, instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all are necessary for every one:

From this we can conclude that at least one sacrament is necessary for all and, because no other sacrament can be partaken of without first having received the sacrament of Baptism, the sacrament of Baptism is therefore necessary for ALL.

Mike do you believe that unless a man be born again of WATER and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (as it is written and as the Truth says)? A simple yes or no will suffice.

And, as you also told us, Pope Eugene IV did not really buy into what he declared in the same Council (moved to Basel) when he said that his prescriptions take away nothing from the common teachings of the Doctors and the theological schools who discourse on these matters (such as baptism of blood); he didn't actually mean that it would apply here, for he was actually condemning the universal common teaching.

What we are bound by is NOT the common teachings of the Doctors and the theological schools, but rather the constant and unanimous teachings of the same when they reflect the constant and universal teachings of the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium; the ordinary magisterium being itself subject to the extraordinary.

Gosh, being the true arbiter of tradition and dogmatic truth is just awesome, I don't know how you do it.

It's easy. Just look up the definitions and abide by them without chopping and changing them.

And it is the same embellished Feeneyite fundamentalist spin that can say with a straight face that an adult Orthodox member of a particular Eastern Church who is not in visible communion with the Catholic Church “remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally”, while at the same time “‘he is not an external member’ … of the Catholic Church”.

I tried to cover this in a very exacting way but you were having none of it. I must warn you that I will be getting back to it using the initial abandoned format that was making life difficult for you. If you don't wish to jion in on this I'll ask other forum members if they would kindly do so (and hopefully at least one of those also who hold the same specious views as you ).

Golly, you are really confused. How’s the hole-digging coming? You should be punching through to China at any moment.

Hey! Was that you I just saw passing me on your way to the middle of the Indian Ocean?

So, once again, show us where “The Church has already defined dogmatically who is … a member” of the Catholic Church.

As the arbiter of tradition and of dogmatic truth, you said the Church dogmatically defined it, so it must be true; and inquiring minds would like to know if you can back up the chutzpah with the dogmatic definition.

Don’t be shy, just do it.

An excathedra statement is a dogmatic truth of the faith so, I haven't been shy; I did it.

Oh, and are you absolutely certain I am not the pope? I mean, if you don’t really know who the pope is, how can you know who the pope is not?

That's a darn good question Mike, and there is in fact someone going by the name of Michael claiming that position already. Unless that's you, he's beaten you to the post.

Knowing who the pope is not; that will have to be somewhere in the region of 99.9% to the power of 4 or something of the world's population (I'll need to ask Duck bill or DeSelby to confirm this). Or, to represent it as a fraction; 7 billion over 1, minus 1 seven billionth.

And I was just getting used to the idea; and, as you can tell, our old friend simple faith was crushed by this new revelation.

Don't worry about him.

From the Life of St. Columba:
Columba is said never to have spent an hour without study, prayer, or similar occupations. When at home he was frequently engaged in transcribing.



From The Church Teaches, Documents of the Church in English Translation
By the Jesuit fathers of St Mary's College, Kansas, 1955 page 90, Chapter 6, The Church is a Society absolutely necessary for Salvation.

This book contains a great volume of the quotes and references that we all use. This has been a great reference for me for over forty years. It is available on line. I have many thoughts on the following quote but for this post will just say that I do not think any of us will truly understand to what degree the Holy Ghost has protected the purity of the Catholic Faith through the centuries and especially now in this, Our time and Our Souls and Our loved ones souls and the souls on this forum in this Crisis of Faith.

The Vatican Council 1869-1870:

" ..... We teach that the Church is not a free society, as if it were a matter indifferent to salvation whether it were known or ignored, entered or abandoned; but the Church is absolutely necessary , and, indeed, not just with a necessity coming from the precept of the Lord by which the Saviour commanded all nations to enter it; but it is also necessary as a means because, in the order of salvation established by Providence, the communication of the Holy Spirit and the participation of truth and life is not had except in the Church and through the Church of which Christ is the head."

If only wiser heads had prevailed; Oh My!

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:Mike the Church has clearly defined who is NOT a member and done so with all the dogmatic authority she could muster. Those outside the visible ecclesiastical body are Not members and cannot be saved. Jews, Pagans, heretics, apostates and schismatics.

Are you shocked at that? So shocked that you refuse to believe it?
Pope Eugene IV was not pampering to emotionalism when he proclaimed this dogma. He was stating the absolute, unadulerated, unapologetic, divinely revealed truth. End of story.

Spoken like the true arbiter of tradition and dogmatic truth.

However, I asked you produce the evidence to back up your assertion that “The Church has already defined dogmatically who is, and who is not a member” of the Catholic Church and you are only half-way there; now, you only have to produce the dogmatic definition that defines who IS a member of the Church.

What are you waiting for?

Here Goes:

But first may I remind you Mike that the texts you quote to uphold your theory of membership in veto are not themselves dogmatic proclamations.

It doesn’t matter if unity with the visible Church in voto is not “dogmatic”, it is the common and “authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops” which is “set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation”, to wit, the revealed truths of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. As such, the “authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff” cannot, by necessity, be opposed to, and must be understood in the very same sense that “the Church has understood and understands her dogmas” (VCI).

So in THAT general sense, the teaching is infallible; for it cannot be opposed, or give a different sense to dogmas as the Church has always understood them, especially since the teaching relates directly to the correct understanding of the salvation dogmas.

columba wrote:You ask me to bring forth a dogmatic definition of declaring who "is" a member of the Church. I can supply you with such a definition from Trent (14)
"..the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body' (1 Cor. 12:13).”

From this we can see that the Church teaches that only those who have been once made members by the laver of baptism are to be considered as members of the Church.

Of course, no one can be a member “of the household of the faith” (the Church Militant) without Baptism, and those who have been made ‘members of his own body' by the laver of baptism are members of the Church. But, “such a definition” of membership says nothing about the definition of “unity of the Body”, of unity in faith and government and subjection to the Roman Pontiff.

In other words, Baptism is NOT the only requirement for Church membership, which is the whole point; a point you do not seem willing to concede. Even Duckbill recognizes that the Church has never dogmatically defined the essential elements of Church membership, or the definitions of the individual elements (except Baptism), though we certainly know what they are through the infallible ordinary magisterial teachings of the Church.

Of course, if Baptism is the only essential element for membership, perhaps that’s why you are so confused over the adult member of the Orthodox Church.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
And, it is most certainly true that Jews, Pagans, heretics, apostates and schismatics are NOT members of the one true Church of Christ, and none of those can be saved unless before death they are “joined to” the Church. Now, why in the world would you think I have a problem with that? What is there to be “shocked” about and why in heavens name would I “refuse to believe it” when I hold it with divine and catholic faith?

Because you also believe that the Jew, Pagan, heretic and apostate can be joined to the church in some way other than by acceptance of and incorporation into the one true faith.

How is someone “incorporated into the one true faith”? What is the definition of “incorporation”? Shall we include the definition proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas?

columba wrote:I too believe that before death they can achieve this by repenting and converting; you maintain that they can still be joined to the Church without this explicit act of converting.

Really, is that what I believe? Show me where I ever said that.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Of course, we both know what you really mean, and that is why you infer that I refuse to believe your embellished Feeneyite fundamentalist spin on the dogma that positively precludes any of the aforementioned souls who are outside of communion with the Church from being “joined to” the Church before death by grace and a conversion of heart through the bonds of faith and charity should an external visible membership be obstructed through no fault of their own.

And this my dear friend is nonsense. Why? Because as I've just shown above, If the external, visible membership be obstructed and is not relized, the Church will not consider such souls as her members.

What are you talking about? You say I am speaking nonsense, and then say exactly what I said you really mean; that no one can be “joined to” the Church without external visible membership via Baptism, and you thus reject the Church’s doctrine on external membership in voto and internal unity with Christ and His Body through the bonds of faith and charity.

Where does your “dogmatic definition” positively preclude such a unity, when the Church teaches that an act of love suffices when external unity is obstructed?

Would you like to accuse the Church, once again, of denying her own dogma and of rejecting the entire Faith? Do words have meaning, or do you just throw them out there to see what sticks?

columba wrote:
My Feeneyite fundamentalist spin is none other than what the Church defines as the truth. Fr Feeney was never censored for his "fundamentalist spin" which he died without retracting. Why was he not condemned for this "fundamentalist spin?" Because his "fundamentalist spin" was recognized as consistant with the teaching of the Church throughout all her prior history.

Now you are speaking nonsense, for nowhere have you demonstrated that the Church has “defined” that “An act of love is [NOT] sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”; nowhere -- you are blowing “Feeneyite” smoke.

And Fr. Feeney, who rejected your fundamentalist definition of justification and accepted Pope Pius XII’s and Trent’s Session 6, Ch 4 on a state of grace “by the desire for it” (though his definition of “justification” without water Baptism is not consistent), was in fact “censored”, along with the St. Benedict Center,

for the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, ‘outside the Church there is no salvation,’ was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.

The Sacred Congregation went on to say:

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

Speaking of the 1949 Holy Office Letter, it clearly teaches that "For in this letter [Mystici Corporis Christi] the Sovereign Pontiff [Pope Pius XII] clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire”, the very doctrine Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center rejected. It then declares:

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "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."

Far from being “consistent”, Fr. Feeney’s ideas on incorporation and justification were entirely inconsistent with the universal moral consensus of theologians and most certainly with the ordinary magisterial teachings of the Church (e.g. as represented by the teachings of Pope Pius XII).

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
You know, the same embellished Feeneyite fundamentalist spin on the dogma that positively precludes the non-water baptized martyr who professes the Catholic faith whole and inviolate and dies burning in desire and in that true charity asked for by our Lord from being “joined to” the Church in voto before his blood-drenched death for Christ.

Emotionalism plays no part in the faith. That's why we're in this mess in the first place. If a teaching is too hard, reject it (or at least soften it). That's why we have, in our post Vat II Church, one that is awash with emotional wrecks from top to bottom.

The Church’s teaching on baptism of blood did not begin with VCII, and “emotionalism” plays not part in the doctrine itself. The doctrine is either a true and authentic teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (ecclesia docens), or, as you told us, it is a “denial” of the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus dogma; and thus, it is a denial “of the whole faith”.

Are you trying to have it both ways?

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
See, he never had the opportunity to be in visible union with the Church where he could participate in its sacramental life, so he is damned to hell; yet, you can’t show us where the dogma actually says this as you “refuse to believe” the Church’s own magisterial teaching on this matter. Shocking.

Pope Pius IV (Iniunctum nobis 1565) I also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the new law, instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all are necessary for every one:

From this we can conclude that at least one sacrament is necessary for all and, because no other sacrament can be partaken of without first having received the sacrament of Baptism, the sacrament of Baptism is therefore necessary for ALL.

Yes, the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for ALL, and we may understand its true sense from Trent, Session 7, Canon IV that declares no one can obtain “the grace of justification without them [the sacraments], or without the desire thereof … though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual”.

The fact that Baptism, as a divine and ecclesiastical precept, is necessary to all, and that no one can participate in the sacramental life of the Church without first receiving Baptism has nothing to do with obtaining the grace of justification with the sacrament of Baptism (or Penance), or with the desire thereof.

We may arrive at this conclusion because that is precisely how the Church understands it and teaches it.

columba wrote: Mike do you believe that unless a man be born again of WATER and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (as it is written and as the Truth says)? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes, properly understood.

I believe precisely as the Church, the only authorized interpreter of Scripture, believes and understands our Lord’s words -- that no man can enter the kingdom of God, as Truth says, without being born again into Christ in the grace of regeneration. The divine emphasis is on the intrinsic necessity of re-birth, with water baptism being the ordinary instrumental means, but not the only instrumental means for the transmission of the grace of regeneration and the merits of our Lord’s Redemption.

This is precisely why the Catechism of Trent teaches: “No one can doubt that the Sacraments are among the means of attaining righteousness and salvation”, and why Pope Leo XIII declared: “nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments which are administered by men” (Satis Cognitum).

I also believe that “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.” (Catechism of Trent)

I also believe “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism” (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to mid wives).

I believe that on matters of salvation, the Church can neither deceive nor be deceived in her ordinary magisterial teachings, which is another was of saying there is only ONE Magisterium, with various modes for the transmission of the same Truths; and that those who dare to accuse the Church of denying her own dogmas through her authentic ordinary magisterium on matters of salvation are blind purveyors of heresy.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
And, as you also told us, Pope Eugene IV did not really buy into what he declared in the same Council (moved to Basel) when he said that his prescriptions take away nothing from the common teachings of the Doctors and the theological schools who discourse on these matters (such as baptism of blood); he didn't actually mean that it would apply here, for he was actually condemning the universal common teaching.

What we are bound by is NOT the common teachings of the Doctors and the theological schools, but rather the constant and unanimous teachings of the same when they reflect the constant and universal teachings of the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium; the ordinary magisterium being itself subject to the extraordinary.

That you can say such inanities with a straight face is truly amazing. You are actually suggesting that the constant and unanimous teachings of the Doctors and the theological schools do NOT reflect the constant and universal teachings of the ordinary magisterium on baptism of blood.

Well, not exactly, for you then set the ordinary magisterium (whose ordinary universal teaching on baptism of blood you cannot deny) in opposition to the “extraordinary” magisterium on Baptism, as if the constant and unanimous teaching of the ordinary magisterium can “deny” a dogma proposed by the extraordinary magisterium.

And this, you say, is what Pope Eugene IV was actually teaching when he said “that his prescriptions take away nothing from the common teachings of the Doctors and the theological schools who discourse on these matters (such as baptism of blood)”.

Unbelievable; there is no response to such unaffected nonsensical double-speak -- so why bother?

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Gosh, being the true arbiter of tradition and dogmatic truth is just awesome, I don't know how you do it.

It's easy. Just look up the definitions and abide by them without chopping and changing them.

Yes, just make it up as you go and impose your own private interpretations, while ignoring what the Church actually teaches and refusing to be moderated by the same Church.

Who said Protestantism is dead?

Seriously, if columba says that the ordinary universal teaching on baptism of blood denies the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and is thus a denial of the whole faith, then it must be true … for one need only “look up the definitions and abide by them without chopping and changing them”.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
And it is the same embellished Feeneyite fundamentalist spin that can say with a straight face that an adult Orthodox member of a particular Eastern Church who is not in visible communion with the Catholic Church “remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally”, while at the same time “‘he is not an external member’ … of the Catholic Church”.

I tried to cover this in a very exacting way but you were having none of it. I must warn you that I will be getting back to it using the initial abandoned format that was making life difficult for you. If you don't wish to jion in on this I'll ask other forum members if they would kindly do so (and hopefully at least one of those also who hold the same specious views as you ).

No, I have not abandoned the format - I responded to your questions; and as far as I am concerned, you’ve only dug a deeper hole for yourself and have clarified nothing, least of all "in a very exacting way" how “an adult Orthodox member of a particular Eastern Church who is not in visible communion with the Catholic Church ‘remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally’, while at the same time ‘he is not an external member’ … of the Catholic Church”.

If someone else can explain how an adult member of a particular Orthodox church who columba says is NOT an external member of the Catholic Church, but can remain truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally, please, be my guest, for I have this annoying "logic block" that prevents me from seeing the "very exacting" explanation.

Any takers? Does anyone understand what columba is saying?

I simply do not get it.

columba wrote:

George Brenner wrote:
Let me try that last post one more time......

Hello Columba,

I think that most of your arguments are against these simple words.... from the CCC: 847 "those too may achieve eternal salvation.337" The phrase says ' may ' it does not say ' will.' We should always, with no exceptions let the Church explain, in Her official teaching capacity how 'may' is to be understood. Private interpretation is dangerous. Furthermore to question or in any way challenge the will of God in these matters of Salvation is wrong and sinful. Many of the hypothetical examples you have cited in earlier posts are only hypothetical and if true would only be known to God and His perfect will. This is in perfect harmony with Church teaching on No salvation Outside the Catholic Church.

Goerge,
If only that were the case and there were no other concerns.

The quote from the CCC you refer to highlights how the CCC has become the master of the unfinished sentence.
I'll quote it in full and then finish the sentence the last sentence properly. Those lazy writers must have taken a coffee break at the wrong time.

847 "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation." if, before death, they be baptized and enter the Catholic Church, for as the Truth Says, "Every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

Columba is the master of taking a teaching out of its given context, and then finishing it with an embellishment, as if it were a revealed truth that our Lord is absolutely bound to water Baptism to effect the same end.

There are other ways to finish the sentence more in keeping with the doctrine being expressed, such as "if before death they are regenerated into Christ through the bonds of faith, charity and desire, for as Truth Says, 'Every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.'"

Or “In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807; 1949 Holy Office Letter).”

Mike,

I'll begin a new thread which will hopefully deal in more detail with the things we're discussing. It will give you the opportunity to pin me down on specifics and bring my errors into the light thus exposing them for what they are in the clearest possible way.

I really don't mind if I be proved wrong but If so, I will repent in sackcloth and ashes.

Columba,

Please read and then re read Pope Pius IX's words below. I believe in your sincerity. I share many of your points of sorrow on the current crisis of Faith. The reasons and conjectures have been posted by many of us already. We could certainly re visit them again but not in this post. I think that your pain has caused you to abandon the Ark of Salvation when you can and should take part in the solution. It is easy for the devil to scoop up the souls of those that are wicked but there are others that will be a major trophies for the eternal flames. I do not have the time or desire to address a certain cult that pronounces almost everyone and every word or action after V2, as heretical or a scandal. Quite simply the Popes and words and teachings they denounce are the same words and teachings as spoken through the centuries by many many Saints and Popes. Therefore they would have to add all the Saints and Popes of pre Vatican II that said or had the same teachings to their sinful list of the doomed and evil ones. In other words, case closed they are leading souls astray{ More Charitably said then I probably should}.I think that the Crisis of Faith will be solved quite possibly with Birettas, chapel veils and vigorous use of ones knees but that remains to be seen. Hopefully the Society of Saints Pius V and X with prayer will soon be fully reunited to the Church and not the other way around. There is much work to be done in the battle of good versus evil.

From Blessed Pope Pius IX

For God who reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of men, will not permit, in accordance with His infinite goodness and mercy, anone who is not guilty of voulntary fault to suffer eternal punishment. However also well known is the dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, that those who obstinately oppose the authority and definitions of that Church, and who stubbornly remain separated from the Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff (to who the Savior has entrusted His vineyard), cannot obtain salvation" (Denzinger 1677/2866)

There is No Contradiction Between
"There is no Salvation Outside the Catholic Church"
and

Baptism of Desire

Saint Cyprian (died A.D. 258) didn't see any contradiction between:
"He who has turned his back on the Church of Christ shall not come to the rewards of Christ; he is an alien, a worldling, an enemy. You cannot have God for your Father if you have not the Church for your mother. Our Lord warns us when He says: `he that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth.' Whosoever breaks the peace and harmony of Christ acts against Christ; whoever gathers elsewhere than in the Church scatters the Church of Christ." (Unity of the Catholic Church) "The catechumens who were caught and killed confessing the Name [of Christ] before they were baptized in the Church... holding the integral Faith and truth of the Church... were not deprived of the sacrament of Baptism, being baptized by the most glorious and excellent Baptism, by which the Lord Himself said he had to be baptized [Lk. 12:50]. That those who are baptized in their own blood and sanctified by their passion were glorified and received the Divine promise, is taught to us by the Lord Himself in the Gospel, when He promised to the thief who believed and confessed [the Faith] that he would be with Him in paradise" (Epistle, lxxii: 22).

+
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (died A.D. 386) didn't see any contradiction between:
"Abhor all heretics...heed not their fair speaking or their mock humility; for they are serpents, a `brood of vipers.' Remember that, when Judas said `Hail Rabbi,' the salutation was an act of betrayal. Do not be deceived by the kiss but beware of the venom. Abhor such men, therefore, and shun the blasphemers of the Holy Spirit, for whom there is no pardon. For what fellowship have you with men without hope. Let us confidently say to God regarding all heretics, `Did I not hate, O Lord, those who hated Thee, and did I not pine away because of Your enemies?' For there is an enmity that is laudable, as it is written, `I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.' Friendship with the serpent produces enmity with God, and death. Let us shun those from whom God turns away." (The Fathers of the Church) "If anyone does not receive Baptism, he shall not be saved, except the martyrs, who even without the water shall receive the kingdom."

Pope Saint Pius X didn't see any contradiction between:
"It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation." (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane) "Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation.... The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire" (Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, Baptism Q.16, 17).






Blessed Pope Pius IX didn't see any contradiction between:
"It must be held as a matter of 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." (Denzinger 1647)

Note that Blessed Pope Pius incorporates both teachings in the single statement in the
"Since it must be held by faith that nobody can be saved outside of the Roman Apostolic Church, this is the one, only, ark of salvation; anyone has not entered in it will perish in the deluge. But in the same time it must also be held for certain that those who ignore the true religion, when their ignorance is invincible, are not subject to guilt in the eyes of the Lord. Now, who will presume to determine the limits of that ignorance, taking into account the variety of the peoples, the regions, the various talents, and of many other things? When, freed from the bonds of the body, we will see God as He is, and we will see the close and beautiful tie that connects the divine mercy and the divine justice. But as long as we remain with the burdens of earth and the mortal mass that weights down the spirit, we firmly hold and agree with the Catholic doctrine, that there exists a single God, one single faith, a single baptism. Further investigating will only puff one up." [Dz. 1647
"In any event, as demands charity, let us continuously pray for the conversion of all people, of every land, who are not converted to Christ. Let us strive according to our power for the common salvation of all men, for the hand of the Lord is not shortened. The gifts of heavenly grace will not be withheld to those who, with sincere mind, ask to come to this light. This truth must itself be deeply imprinted in the minds of the faithful, so that they cannot come to the false doctrines that aim to foment that religious indifference, which we see spreading farther and more strongly and fortifying itself to damage of souls. [Dz. 1648
"Those afflicted with invincible ignorance of our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and lead a virtuous and dutiful life can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace. For God who reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of men, will not permit, in accordance with His infinite goodness and mercy, anone who is not guilty of voulntary fault to suffer eternal punishment. However also well known is the dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, that those who obstinately oppose the authority and definitions of that Church, and who stubbornly remain separated from the Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff (to who the Savior has entrusted His vineyard), cannot obtain salvation" (Denzinger 1677/2866)

Goerge,

Would you like to contribute to the new thread I just started.

You can link to it here; https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t787-questions-concerning-fundamentals-of-catholicism#6157