The folly of those who obstinately and tenaciously fight for baptism of desire

It is a fact that this alleged “fact” is absolutely false.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church:

As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues. (STh III, q. 69, a. 4.)

“Man” refers to men (humanity) in general, and not just to Catechumens, otherwise, St. Thomas would not have said “he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly”.

Furthermore, it is absolutely true to say that every soul who has ever been, or ever will ever be saved by “baptism of desire” (faith, charity, intention) “believes in Jesus Christ and the Trinity” either explicitly, or implicitly, as St. Thomas also affirms:

If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation [before the Gospel], they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: "Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth." (STh II-II q. 2 a. 7 ad 3)

As to those under the Old Testament who through faith were acceptable to God, in this respect they belonged to the New Testament: for they were not justified except through faith in Christ, Who is the Author of the New Testament. Hence of Moses the Apostle says (Hebrews 11:26) that he esteemed "the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasure of the Egyptians." (STh, I-II, q. 107, a. 1, ad 3)

About this disposition for justification, Trent infallibly declared:

Concerning this disposition [for justification] it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; (Session 6, Ch. 6)

This disposition for justification/the remission of sins/baptism is/was applicable at all times and to all men, and for those who are preparing to receive Baptism under the new law of grace, they are also admonished in the same Ch. 6 to “Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”.

What does it say about the scholastic and theological acumen and integrity of a sede sect that presumes to instruct the faithful in the “true” doctrine when it cannot even get its first “fact” correct when it arrogantly attempts to expose “The folly of those who obstinately and tenaciously fight for baptism of desire”?

And guess what, the rest of his “facts” in his “expose” are of the same “factual” caliber.

Mike,

Your analysis is fine, as long as it is understood that not everyone will be saved in Eternity:

Council of Quiercy

Chap. 1. Omnipotent God created man noble without sin with a free will, and he whom He wished to remain in the sanctity of justice, He placed in Paradise. Man using his free will badly sinned and fell, and became the “mass of perdition” of the entire human race. The just and good God, however, chose from this same mass of perdition according to His foreknowledge those whom through grace He predestined to life. [Rom. 8:29 ff; Eph. 1:11], and He predestined for these eternal life; the others, whom by the judgment of justice he left in the mass of perdition, however, He knew would perish, but He did not predestine that they would perish, because He is just; however, He predestined eternal punishment for them. And on account of this we speak of only one predestination of God, which pertains either to the gift of grace or to the retribution of justice.

Chap. 2. The freedom of will which we lost in the first man, we have received back through Christ our Lord; and we have free will for good, preceded and aided by grace, and we have free will for evil, abandoned by grace. Moreover, because freed by grace and by grace healed from corruption, we have free will.

Chap. 3. Omnipotent God wishes all men without exception to between saved [I Tim. 2] although not all will be saved. However, that certain ones are saved, is the gift of the one who saves; that certain ones perish, however, is the deserved punishment of those who perish.

Chap. 4. Christ Jesus our Lord, as no man who is or has been or ever will be whose nature will not have been assumed in Him, so there is, has been, or will be, no man, for whom He has not suffered; although not all will be saved by the mystery of His passion. But because all are not redeemed by the mystery of His passion, He does not regard the greatness and the fullness of the price, but He regards the part of the unfaithful ones and those not believing in faith those things which He has worked through loves [Gal. 5], because the drink of human safety, which has been prepared by our infirmity and by divine strength, has indeed in itself that it may be beneficial to all; but if it is not drunk, it does not heal.

The CCC references the Council of Quiercy somewhat selectively:

605 At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God's love excludes no one: "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." He affirms that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many"; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us. The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer."

The Council of Trent condemns those who would claim that they "know" that they will attain everlasting life:

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

Of course, if we Roman Catholics who are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome cannot make such a claim about ourselves, how could we possibly make such a claim about anyone else, especially, someone who is not in visible communion with the Roman Pontiff???

This is why Pope Pius IX taught in his Syllabus of Errors:

Condemned: 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

Implicit desire/faith/submission and "invincible ignorance" are all academic, impossible to prove as being true with any particular individual. We ought to evangelize accordingly.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Your analysis is fine, as long as it is understood that not everyone will be saved in Eternity:

Well, Jehanne, I've never been a proponent of "universal salvation"; and I don't think I've ever given anyone that impression.

I'll review your selection from the Council of Quiercy and the "selective" teaching of the CCC and will let you know if I read it the same way.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Your analysis is fine,

Thanks, Jehanne, my analysis was a simple presentation of the facts that conclusively demonstrates that the very first “fact” presented by Dimond is patently false. In fact, the evidence is so conclusive that his “fact” is false there can be no debate over this fact.

FFOT arrogantly and scandalously attributes the failure of common sense Catholics to accept the “irrefutable facts” of a notorious sede sect, and the conclusions derived from those “facts”, to “bad will”. Let’s see who has “bad will” when it comes to acknowledging the truth of the facts presented herein (taught by St. Thomas Aquinas).

Jehanne wrote:as long as it is understood that not everyone will be saved in Eternity:

Council of Quiercy

Chap. 3. Omnipotent God wishes all men without exception to be saved [I Tim. 2] although not all will be saved. However, that certain ones are saved, is the gift of the one who saves; that certain ones perish, however, is the deserved punishment of those who perish.

Chap. 4. Christ Jesus our Lord, as no man who is or has been or ever will be whose nature will not have been assumed in Him, so there is, has been, or will be, no man, for whom He has not suffered; although not all will be saved by the mystery of His passion. But because all are not redeemed by the mystery of His passion,…

The CCC references the Council of Quiercy somewhat selectively:

605 At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God's love excludes no one: "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." He affirms that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many"; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us. The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer."(Council of Quiercy (853): DS 624; cf. 2 Cor 5:15; I Jn 2:2.)

No, Jehanne, you are the one being selective with your restrictive citation of the CCC, with the latter being a comprehensive exposition of the Church’s full body of teaching. Your “somewhat selective” statement fails to consider that CCC 604 and 605 fall under the heading “God takes the initiative of universal redeeming love”, and cites the Council of Quiercy and Scripture to that end.

What it says by way of explanatory note at the end of Article 10, "I BELIEVE IN THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS", “(Part Two of the Catechism will deal explicitly with the forgiveness of sins through Baptism, the sacrament of Penance, and the other sacraments, especially the Eucharist. Here it will suffice to suggest some basic facts briefly, as hey relate to God’.)”, for example, also applies here: In subsequent chapters, the Catechism will deal explicitly with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, the Particular Judgment and Hell. Here it suffices to suggest some basic facts briefly as they relate to God’s universal redeeming love.

In fact, 602 states in part:

Man's sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death. By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

It does NOT say that all men “WILL” become the righteousness of God, and in subsequent sections it affirms, with Quiercy, that “not all will be saved”:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

I. The Particular Judgment

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, -or immediate and everlasting damnation.

IV. Hell

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":

The CCC goes into much greater detail than Quiercy, as it should.

Jehanne wrote:The Council of Trent condemns those who would claim that they "know" that they will attain everlasting life:

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

Of course, if we Roman Catholics who are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome cannot make such a claim about ourselves, how could we possibly make such a claim about anyone else, especially, someone who is not in visible communion with the Roman Pontiff???

Jehanne, yes, that’s what the Church teaches, and what is your point? Where did you ever get the idea that the CCC or in any other official magisterial document the Church has ever taught anything different? That the Church no longer holds the Orthodox culpable for their schism, for example, does not mean that she “knows” that any particular adult is in a state of sanctifying grace, let alone that she “knows” that those who are in a state of grace will persevere to the end (and will be saved), for she “knows” no such thing. Honestly, where do you come up with these logical fallacies and these off-the-wall “interpretations” of Church teaching?

Haven't we been over this enough?

Jehanne wrote:
This is why Pope Pius IX taught in his Syllabus of Errors:

Condemned: 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

Yes, but your reference to the Syllabus of Errors is somewhat selective for you cannot read this in isolation by removing it from the context of the very Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur” that Pius IX bases his condemned proposition upon; meaning, A) “those who are NOT AT ALL in the true Church” are all of those who are “knowingly” outside and who obstinately refuse to join her:

8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11] (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore)

And B), his condemned proposition does not apply to those of good will who are struggling in invincible ignorance:

7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

You are “reaching”, Jehanne, and grasping at straw.

Jehanne wrote:
Implicit desire/faith/submission and "invincible ignorance" are all academic, impossible to prove as being true with any particular individual. We ought to evangelize accordingly.

These truths are not “academic”, they are doctrines of the Church. That no one can “prove” who is is who is not in "invincible ignorance", or that any one person will be saved is an academic exercise in futility -- and totally irrelevant, but we “know” that God will save all of those who love Him and remain true to His Word. We ought to evangelize accordingly, without watering down the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, but neither should we ignore the fullness of that Truth.

MRyan wrote:You are “reaching”, Jehanne, and grasping at straw.

Jehanne wrote:
Implicit desire/faith/submission and "invincible ignorance" are all academic, impossible to prove as being true with any particular individual. We ought to evangelize accordingly.

These truths are not “academic”, they are doctrines of the Church. That no one can “prove” who is is who is not in "invincible ignorance", or that any one person will be saved is an academic exercise in futility -- and totally irrelevant, but we “know” that God will save all of those who love Him and remain true to His Word. We ought to evangelize accordingly, without watering down the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, but neither should we ignore the fullness of that Truth.

What do you want from the Dimonds, or any other "hard-core Feeneyite" for that matter, to acknowledge? That there are individuals in Paradise who have died without Baptism and/or outside the canonical boundaries of the Catholic Church? Okay, fine, I acknowledge that, at least as a possibility, but I only, of course, speak for myself. So what?

Let's take an example, the Orthodox. Look in the Index of the CCC:

ORTHODOX CHURCHES: Eastern Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Christians of the Orthodox Churches are separated from the Catholic Church (schism), yet are in an imperfect but deep communion with the Catholic Church by reason of our common Baptism, the profession of the Creed, and the possession of true sacraments by reason of the apostolic succession of their priesthood (838, 1399).

Is their schism material and/or formal? No doubt, with some, the former; with others, the later. However, how can any of us know, with any particular individual, which "category" they belong to? So, to be safe, we give everyone the Truth and let the Triune God "sort things out."

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:
You are “reaching”, Jehanne, and grasping at straw.

Jehanne wrote:
Implicit desire/faith/submission and "invincible ignorance" are all academic, impossible to prove as being true with any particular individual. We ought to evangelize accordingly.

These truths are not “academic”, they are doctrines of the Church. That no one can “prove” who is and who is not in "invincible ignorance", or that any one person will be saved is an academic exercise in futility -- and totally irrelevant, but we “know” that God will save all of those who love Him and remain true to His Word. We ought to evangelize accordingly, without watering down the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, but neither should we ignore the fullness of that Truth.

What do you want from the Dimonds, or any other "hard-core Feeneyite" for that matter, to acknowledge? That there are individuals in Paradise who have died without Baptism and/or outside the canonical boundaries of the Catholic Church? Okay, fine, I acknowledge that, at least as a possibility, but I only, of course, speak for myself. So what?

Yes, so what?

Did you take notice of the very first post on this thread? Was there something about it you do not understand? Was my intention in exposing the false “fact” made by Dimond, and the incontrovertible evidence I brought forth exposing his “folly”, not made manifestly clear? Should we ignore the clear teaching of Aquinas and the Church because it actually suggests that the grace of salvation may actually be realized even in those who are not formal members of the Church, and not even formal Catechumens?

Does that bother you so much that you just have to erect these never ending straw-filled constructs?

You are the one who brought up “universal salvation” as if I, or the Church, suggested any such thing.

You are the one who alleged that “The CCC references the Council of Quiercy somewhat selectively” when it did no such thing, and, as was demonstrated, their doctrines are identical.

On your usual roll, you are the one who now says “The Council of Trent condemns those who would claim that they 'know' that they will attain everlasting life” as if anyone, let alone the Church, suggested otherwise. You simply conflate two truths of the same coin by suggesting that the assurance of salvation promised to those who die in a state of grace is the same thing as saying that one can “know” with infallible assurance that any one adult will persevere and die in a state of grace.

The "certainty" of the “good hope of salvation” afforded to those who live their lives in Christ is not a reckless and heretical “certainty” that says one cannot fall from grace and lose salvation. These subtle but crucial distinctions seem to be simply lost on you. St. Paul made no bones about saying that he will be saved, along with all of those who keep the faith:

I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing. (2 Tim 4:7)

However, Trent reveals the greater context:

Trent, Session VI, Canons on Justification:

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

Of course, as with the Apostles who were assured of their salvation by our Lord, St. Paul was blessed with a “special revelation” of his future glory.

Additionally, we know that St. Paul, despite this special revelation, knew that his salvation was not “infallibly” assured, and that he could fail, though there was no way in hell he believed that was going to happen.

However, the appearance of a deep and abiding sanctity in those who are mired in this veil of tears (without any special revelation) is evidence of the good hope of salvation, for faith is the assurance [substance] of things hoped for, but it is not an “infallible assurance”.

Why is this so hard to understand, and why do you persist with the non-stop interjections which have you suggesting that the Church says we can “know” with infallible assurance those individuals who will be saved, when the Church has never taught any such thing, but only that those who in fact die in a state of grace WILL be saved?

What do I want from the Dimonds? I want nothing but the truth, and not their false renditions thereof.

Jehanne wrote:
Let's take an example, the Orthodox. Look in the Index of the CCC:

ORTHODOX CHURCHES: Eastern Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Christians of the Orthodox Churches are separated from the Catholic Church (schism), yet are in an imperfect but deep communion with the Catholic Church by reason of our common Baptism, the profession of the Creed, and the possession of true sacraments by reason of the apostolic succession of their priesthood (838, 1399).

Is their schism material and/or formal? No doubt, with some, the former; with others, the later. However, how can any of us know, with any particular individual, which "category" they belong to? So, to be safe, we give everyone the Truth and let the Triune God "sort things out."

Again, Jehanne, you are grasping at straw. What do you care if you cannot “know” who is and who isn’t formally schismatic within the particular Orthodox Churches when the Church tells us they she gives their culpability in all such matters the benefit of the doubt?

If you mean that it is “safe” for someone to countermand the Church by telling the Eastern Orthodox they are formally schismatic and heretical (obstinate in their heresy and schism), then whoever does so does not possess the Truth and is not in communion with the Church – and they (Catholics in union with Peter) are supposed to “know” better.

I don't mind your comments, Jehanne, I just don't understand why you seem determined to keep going down these straw-filled paths.

MRyan wrote:If you mean that it is “safe” for someone to countermand the Church by telling the Eastern Orthodox they are formally schismatic and heretical (obstinate in their heresy and schism), then whoever does so does not possess the Truth and is not in communion with the Church – and they (Catholics in union with Peter) are supposed to “know” better.

Well, Mike, the Church can "speak for herself," and she does not need you to "speak for her," and in that respect, she can make her own ecclesiastical judgments known. As for "telling the Eastern Orthodox they are formally schismatic and heretical," I am not aware of any "non-sedes" (such as Dimonds) who are doing that, because to do that would entail making a judgment which we acknowledge that we cannot possibly make (which, you have acknowledged previously that the Church could, if she wished, make on her own.) Consider Jimmy Akin's essay, "Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox":

http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp

It's a wonderful essay and I am sure that you will agree with all of it, but Mr. Akin nowhere in his essay makes any personal judgments about the state of other people's souls. However, in times past, you have acknowledged that the Triune God could reveal to any Orthodox Christian the Truths of the Catholic Faith so as to make that person culpable before Him of his/her schism.

I guess my reason for replying to this thread at all is, as before, to say, "So what?" Even though the Dimonds are wrong on many of their beliefs, including, Baptism of Desire and/or Blood, they are excellent bibliographers, and have produced an excellent tome on the Church's perennial declarations on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus from ages past, which you can, of course, read for free on their website. As you yourself have admitted many times, there is absolutely nothing wrong with proclaiming to everyone, without exception (which, of course, would include the Orthodox), that they need to be formally joined to the One True Faith & Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved. This means, of course, being sacramentally baptized, professing the complete and true Faith, and submission to the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of God.

The SSPX said it best here recently:

This is why its seems to us opportune to reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation and no possibility of finding the means that lead to it; in its monarchical constitution, willed by Our Lord, which means that the supreme power of governance over the whole Church belongs to the pope alone, the Vicar of Christ on earth; in the universal kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the creator of the natural and supernatural order, to whom every human being and all society must submit.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/07/declaration-of-general-chapter-of.html

MRyan said: These truths are not “academic”, they are doctrines of the Church. That no one can “prove” who is is who is not in "invincible ignorance", or that any one person will be saved is an academic exercise in futility -- and totally irrelevant, but we “know” that God will save all of those who love Him and remain true to His Word. We ought to evangelize accordingly, without watering down the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, but neither should we ignore the fullness of that Truth.

Well said for truth is truth. We cannot and should never deny the existence and possibilities of Salvation as judged by God as worthy to those that enter Heaven through Invincible Ignorance, Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood, unknown to us on earth. In fact I would go so far as to say that we should pray and hope that many DO gain Salvation in this manner. Just think of our departed loved ones and friends. It can only be foolish pride and lack of Charity to deny or question these possibilities as they have existed before our all knowing and merciful God. The tragedy of the last half century in our Crisis of the Faith has been due to the watering down of the Dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. The failure to teach this correctly as understood by the Church has been reduced to a meaningless formula , save a few strong voices. The lack of proper catechesis is only now being admitted by many who should have and could have acted to teach the Catholic Faith with clarity and reverence by doing the will of God for many many decades. In watering down our Faith, many through false charity have given the impression and green light that we have entered into some kind of smorgasboard Salvation which must break the heart of our Savour, Jesus Christ. The faith must be taught correctly, while leaving the mercies to God. Teach "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church" properly and the crisis will end.

JMJ,

George

Jehanne wrote:

It's a wonderful essay and I am sure that you will agree with all of it, but Mr. Akin nowhere in his essay makes any personal judgments about the state of other people's souls. However, in times past, you have acknowledged that the Triune God could reveal to any Orthodox Christian the Truths of the Catholic Faith so as to make that person culpable before Him of his/her schism.

Jehanne, I think you are missing a very important point; and I think you’ve been missing it for quite some time.

Even when the Church declares a particular person “culpable before God” for heresy and/or schism by way of legislative judgment (resulting in excommunication, etc), there is only an official recognition of an external (objective) condition for which the Church finds the person culpable – the objective state of heresy and/or schism.

There is NO personal judgment about the state of that person’s soul – period. That is for God to judge.

Again, and again, and again, formal declarations of heresy and/or schism, and the canonical penalties that result, are NOT “personal judgments about the state of other people's souls”.

So if a rad trad or a sede countermands the official policy and judgment of the Church by declaring that the Eastern Orthodox (adults) are personally culpable for the objective state of heresy/schism that exists (i.e. they are all formally schismatic), as I said, “whoever does so does not possess the Truth and is not in communion with the Church – and they (Catholics in union with Peter) are supposed to ‘know’ better.”

And more than one "non-sede" (sure!) on this forum has stated that the Eastern Orthodox are formally schismatic.

MRyan wrote:There is NO personal judgment about the state of that person’s soul – period. That is for God to judge.

The CCC states:

1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.

Heresy and schism are such grave sins:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Divine assistance is given to judgments in manners about canon law (you believe that the Church was correct about Galileo, don't you?):

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

So, for a Pope to declare someone guilty of heresy would mean that person must be guilty of some theological error.

Jehanne, you still don’t get it.

For a Pope to declare someone guilty of heresy would mean that person must be guilty of some theological error is absolutely true, in the objective sense, and unless that person renounces his heresy and reconciles with the Church, he will stand guilty before God IF in fact God holds him culpable for this sin, for which he may not be culpable if, for example, he honestly does not understand his error, and never intended to sin against the faith.

That is for God to judge -- and God alone. Wasn’t Joan the Maid officially excommunicated and condemned to death for heresy?

Someone may be severed from external communion what the Church, while remaining internally united with her Head, notwithstanding the objective appearance and condition of heresy and/or schism. The Church has always taught this, Jehanne, and I do not understand why you cannot see this.

Jehanne wrote:

I guess my reason for replying to this thread at all is, as before, to say, "So what?" Even though the Dimonds are wrong on many of their beliefs, including, Baptism of Desire and/or Blood, they are excellent bibliographers, and have produced an excellent tome on the Church's perennial declarations on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus from ages past, which you can, of course, read for free on their website. As you yourself have admitted many times, there is absolutely nothing wrong with proclaiming to everyone, without exception (which, of course, would include the Orthodox), that they need to be formally joined to the One True Faith & Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved. This means, of course, being sacramentally baptized, professing the complete and true Faith, and submission to the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of God.

Jehanne,

I, of course, disagree with your “excellent tome” characterization of the Dimond’s book on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and in fact, your positive assessment is a contradiction to your other assessment that says they “are wrong on many of their beliefs, including, Baptism of Desire and/or Blood”, for their entire “tome” is a refutation of these established doctrines.

A tome is a scholarly book (or large work), and it does not take a great deal of scholarship to build a bibliography. Scholarship means that a person knows what to do with that bibliography and is familiar with the leading scholarship, both traditional and current, in the field for which the author claims to possess a certain scholastic competency.

Out-of-context selective citations, a lack of competency in ecclesiastical Latin, private interpretation, ignoring the universal traditions of the Church, accusing the ordinary magisterium of error (heresy), accusing the greatest Doctors of the Church of great incompetence and malfeasance, shall I continue?

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

I guess my reason for replying to this thread at all is, as before, to say, "So what?" Even though the Dimonds are wrong on many of their beliefs, including, Baptism of Desire and/or Blood, they are excellent bibliographers, and have produced an excellent tome on the Church's perennial declarations on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus from ages past, which you can, of course, read for free on their website. As you yourself have admitted many times, there is absolutely nothing wrong with proclaiming to everyone, without exception (which, of course, would include the Orthodox), that they need to be formally joined to the One True Faith & Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved. This means, of course, being sacramentally baptized, professing the complete and true Faith, and submission to the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of God.

Jehanne,

I, of course, disagree with your “excellent tome” characterization of the Dimond’s book on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and in fact, your positive assessment is a contradiction to your other assessment that says they “are wrong on many of their beliefs, including, Baptism of Desire and/or Blood”, for their entire “tome” is a refutation of these established doctrines.

A tome is a scholarly book (or large work), and it does not take a great deal of scholarship to build a bibliography. Scholarship means that a person knows what to do with that bibliography and is familiar with the leading scholarship, both traditional and current, in the field for which the author claims to possess a certain scholastic competency.

Out-of-context selective citations, a lack of competency in ecclesiastical Latin, private interpretation, ignoring the universal traditions of the Church, accusing the ordinary magisterium of error (heresy), accusing the greatest Doctors of the Church of great incompetence and malfeasance, shall I continue?

Anyone can read their book and make their own judgments. A "tome" is:

Definition of TOME
1
: a volume forming part of a larger work
2
: book; especially : a large or scholarly book
See tome defined for English-language learners »
See tome defined for kids »
Examples of TOME

a long tome on European history
<picked up a thick tome on the Roman Empire at a used book store>

Origin of TOME
Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin tomus, from Greek tomos section, roll of papyrus, tome, from temnein to cut; akin to Middle Irish tamnaid he lops, Polish ciąć to cut, and perhaps to Latin tondēre to shear
First Known Use: 1519

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tome

The Dimond's list of quotations is exhaustive.

MRyan wrote:Jehanne, you still don’t get it.

For a Pope to declare someone guilty of heresy would mean that person must be guilty of some theological error is absolutely true, in the objective sense, and unless that person renounces his heresy and reconciles with the Church, he will stand guilty before God IF in fact God holds him culpable for this sin, for which he may not be culpable if, for example, he honestly does not understand his error, and never intended to sin against the faith.

That is for God to judge -- and God alone. Wasn’t Joan the Maid officially excommunicated and condemned to death for heresy?

Someone may be severed from external communion what the Church, while remaining internally united with her Head, notwithstanding the objective appearance and condition of heresy and/or schism. The Church has always taught this, Jehanne, and I do not understand why you cannot see this.

If the Church says he/she is culpable, then that person is culpable. From Galileo's abjuration:

"It being the case that thou, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, a Florentine, now aged 70, wast denounced in this Holy Office in 1615:

"That thou heldest as true the false doctrine taught by many, that the Sun was the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth moved, and had also a diurnal motion: That on this same matter thou didst hold a correspondence with certain German mathematicians....

"That the Sun is the centre of the universe and doth not move from his place is a proposition absurd and false in philosophy, and formerly heretical; being expressly contrary to Holy Writ: That the Earth is not the centre of the universe nor immoveable, but that it moves, even with a diurnal motion, is likewise a proposition absurd and false in philosophy, and considered in theology ad minus erroneous in faith.....

"Invoking then the Most Holy Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and of His most glorious Mother Mary, ever Virgin, for this Our definite sentence, the which sitting pro tribunali, by the counsel and opinion of the Reverent Masters of theology and doctors of both laws, Our Counsellors, we present in these writings, in the cause and causes currently before Us, between the magnificent Carlo Sinceri, doctor of both laws, procurator fiscal of this Holy Office on the one part, and thou Galileo Galilei, guilty, here present, confessed and judged, on the other part:

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare, that thou, the said Galileo, by the things deduced during this trial, and by thee confessed as above, hast rendered thyself vehemently suspected of heresy by this Holy Office, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, and contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to wit: that the Sun is the centre of the universe, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the universe: and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after having been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture; and in consequence thou hast incurred all the censures and penalties of the Sacred Canons, and other Decrees both general and particular, against such offenders imposed and promulgated. From the which We are content that thou shouldst be absolved, if, first of all, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, thou dost before Us abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies and any other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, after the manner that We shall require of thee.

"And to the end that this thy grave error and transgression remain not entirely unpunished, and that thou mayst be more cautious in the future, and an example to others to abstain from and avoid similar offences,

"We order that by a public edict the book of DIALOGUES OF GALILEO GALILEI be prohibited, and We condemn thee to the prison of this Holy Office during Our will and pleasure; and as a salutary penance We enjoin on thee that for the space of three years thou shalt recite once a week the Seven Penitential Psalms, reserving to Ourselves the faculty of moderating, changing, or taking from, all other or part of the above-mentioned pains and penalties.

"And thus We say, pronounce, declare, order, condemn, and reserve in this and in any other better way and form which by right We can and ought.

Ita pronunciamus nos Cardinalis infrascripti.

F. Cardinalis de Asculo.
G. Cardinalis Bentivolius
D. Cardinalis de Cremona.
A. Cardinalis S. Honuphri.
B. Cardinalis Gypsius.
F. Cardinalis Verospius.
M. Cardinalis Ginettus.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.asp

As for Joan, the judgment against her was annulled by a "higher authority," that is, Pope Callixtus III.

Jehanne wrote:

If the Church says he/she is culpable, then that person is culpable.

Yes, the person has been judged to be obstinate in his heresy. So, objectively, he is a formal heretic and has committed a mortal sin for which he must confess before the ecclesiastical penalty can be lifted and full communion restored.

But that does not mean that the Church has judged the heretic’s soul before God.

That confession is between the condemned heretic and God, who alone judges his soul and his true moral culpability.

As for Joan, the judgment against her was annulled by a "higher authority," that is, Pope Callixtus III.

So let me get this straight:

The Church declared Joan culpable for heresy, and her soul was thus judged culpable before God because “If the Church says he/she is culpable, then that person is culpable.”

And 25 years after “the Church said she is culpable, then she was culpable”, “the Church said she is [not] culpable, then she is [not] culpable”. In fact, not only was she judged not culpable, there was no heresy, period.

Got it, the Church declared Joan culpable before God before she was declared not culpable before God, but God knew Joan would one day be rehabilitated "by a higher authority", since the "lesser authority" under the Pope's jurisdiction was obviously "invalid", so he withheld holding Joan morally culpable for the mortal sin of heresy when the Church actually, but illicitly, declared her culpable before God -- the first time around.

You mean a higher authority than the Pope withheld affirming the judgement of a lesser Church court (acting in the Pope's name) until the Pope ratified the descieon of a higher court?

You mean the first ecclesiastical tribunal had no authority before God to condemn Joan the Maid for heresy? Or, it had the authority, but it did have the authority to hold her morally culpable before God?

Will you make up your mind?

Honestly, Jehanne, this is the first I’ve heard that excommunications are infallible judgments of the Church that render the condemned heretic morally culpable before God for the objective sin of obstinate heresy; except of course, when the same Church finally decides to infallibly reverses her formal condemnation. Until such time, the condemned heretic is held morally culpable for the sin of heresy, but is only culpable before God IF the infallible judgement will NOT be reversed some time in the future; right, Jehanne?

And here I thought that the Church/Popes are not infallible when making excommunications, or any other disciplinary judgment, for they cannot possibility read the heart with infallible certitude and know, with the same certitude, of any mitigating circumstance that might limit ones moral culpability before God.

Jehanne, I am having trouble keeping up with your logic.

Jehanne wrote:
Anyone can read their book and make their own judgments. A "tome" is:

1 : a volume forming part of a larger work
2 : a large or scholarly book

OK, so their book is a large non-scholarly "tome"; an excellent "bibliography", and "Anyone can read their book and make their own judgments".

And the "judgments they will make" when reading such a flawed tome when they are not already well versed in Patristic scholarship, scholastic theology, the magisterium, the teaching of the manualists, ecclesiology, etc., etc., well, just look at the "scholarship" of some of the copy and paste imitators. Their errors are legion, and their scholarship appalling.

And they get their dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus from that wonderful, but non-scholarly, unauthorized, "bibliographical tome".

Enough said, buyer beware.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

If the Church says he/she is culpable, then that person is culpable.

Yes, the person has been judged to be obstinate in his heresy. So, objectively, he is a formal heretic and has committed a mortal sin for which he must confess before the ecclesiastical penalty can be lifted and full communion restored.

But that does not mean that the Church has judged the heretic’s soul before God.

That confession is between the condemned heretic and God, who alone judges his soul and his true moral culpability.

As for Joan, the judgment against her was annulled by a "higher authority," that is, Pope Callixtus III.

So let me get this straight:

The Church declared Joan culpable for heresy, and her soul was thus judged culpable before God because “If the Church says he/she is culpable, then that person is culpable.”

And 25 years after “the Church said she is culpable, then she was culpable”, “the Church said she is [not] culpable, then she is [not] culpable”. In fact, not only was she judged not culpable, there was no heresy, period.

Joan was tried three times: 1) At Poitiers at the request of France's future King, Charles VII; 2) At Rouen, by Bishop Cauchon, who was a subordinate to the Archbishop who examined her in #1; and 3) posthumously again at Rouen. The verdict in #3 was confirmed by Pope Callixtus III, unlike #1 or #2. Pope Boniface VIII declared in Unam Sanctam:

Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle.

The burden is on you to show that the canonical judgments of a Pope receive no divine assistance.

Jehanne wrote:Pope Boniface VIII declared in Unam Sanctam:

Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle.

The burden is on you to show that the canonical judgments of a Pope receive no divine assistance.

Who ever said that the Pope receives "no divine assistance" when exercising his Supreme legislative office by way of canonical judgments?

But the "divine assistance" that the Pope enjoys in rendering canonical judgements (such as not giving harm to the Church) does NOT extend to papal infallibility (by the very fact that such judgements are reformable). As Pope Boniface VIII declared, "if the highest power of all err [in its canonical judgments], it can be judged only by God".

I don't have to prove anything, Jehanne, it is already a well established magisterial FACT that canonical judgements are NOT part of the Popes Supreme and infallible ex cathedra teaching office, but fall under his Apostolic Primacy of Jurisdiction.

The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that the divine assistance extends to papal infallibility (cannot err in judgment) when the Pope renders judgments in matters of ecclesiastical disciplines.

And we both know you will fail, and it doesn't bode well for you when your pontifical "proof text" completely undermines your entire argument.

Btw, Jehanne, even if a Catholic is judged by a "superior spiritual power" (the Pope) and found guilty of heresy, the judgment is NOT binding on the Pope or any of his successors who may rescind the judgment at any time, and for any reason.

In fact, a person judged not guilty of heresy by the "superior spiritual power" may still be guilty of heresy before God.

MRyan wrote:In fact, a person judged not guilty of heresy by the "superior spiritual power" may still be guilty of heresy before God.

Agreed. Canonical judgments are reformable, however, a person who is declared to be a heretic and who refuses obedience on that account, even if he/she is not truly guilty of heresy, is at least guilty of schism. Point is that if the Church can judge a man guilty of murder the Church can also judge him guilty of being a heretic, on both counts, at least to a moral certitude.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:In fact, a person judged not guilty of heresy by the "superior spiritual power" may still be guilty of heresy before God.

Agreed. Canonical judgments are reformable, however, a person who is declared to be a heretic and who refuses obedience on that account, even if he/she is not truly guilty of heresy, is at least guilty of schism. Point is that if the Church can judge a man guilty of murder the Church can also judge him guilty of being a heretic, on both counts, at least to a moral certitude.

You keep moving the goalposts with these distractions, and refuse to actually address the real issue to which you keep raising false objections. You finally admit that a person who is formally excommunicated by the Church for heresy may not actually be guilty of heresy before God, but let's introduce the sin of obstinate schism into the picture - for what purpose?

What has any of this new story line have to do with the original point of contention -- Is the soul of the declared formal heretic automatically judged by God as being morally culpable for the mortal sin of heresy - yes or no?

The answer is NO, case closed.

He may be guilty of schism before God - or not; and we are back to square one.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:In fact, a person judged not guilty of heresy by the "superior spiritual power" may still be guilty of heresy before God.

Agreed. Canonical judgments are reformable, however, a person who is declared to be a heretic and who refuses obedience on that account, even if he/she is not truly guilty of heresy, is at least guilty of schism. Point is that if the Church can judge a man guilty of murder the Church can also judge him guilty of being a heretic, on both counts, at least to a moral certitude.

You keep moving the goalposts with these distractions, and refuse to actually address the real issue to which you keep raising false objections. You finally admit that a person who is formally excommunicated by the Church for heresy may not actually be guilty of heresy before God, but let's introduce the sin of obstinate schism into the picture - for what purpose?

What has any of this new story line have to do with the original point of contention -- Is the soul of the declared formal heretic automatically judged by God as being morally culpable for the mortal sin of heresy - yes or no?

The answer is NO, case closed.

He may be guilty of schism before God - or not; and we are back to square one.

Don't take my word. Consider what the CCC says:

Only God forgives sin

1441 Only God forgives sins. Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven." Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.

1442 Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation." The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."

Reconciliation with the Church

1443 During his public life Jesus not only forgave sins, but also made plain the effect of this forgiveness: he reintegrated forgiven sinners into the community of the People of God from which sin had alienated or even excluded them. A remarkable sign of this is the fact that Jesus receives sinners at his table, a gesture that expresses in an astonishing way both God's forgiveness and the return to the bosom of the People of God.

1444 In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ's solemn words to Simon Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head."

1445 The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.

I'm not sure what you are "asking," but I am sure that it is something that the Church herself is not asking, that is, that we, as canonical Roman Catholics, assume/presume that the schism on the part of the Orthodox is only material and not formal. For a such a "conclusion" on our part would be absurd. Consider what the CCC says:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

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.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

Now, how could anyone who is outside the canonical bounds of the Catholic Church ever "know" that what he/she "do(es) not know" is "through no fault of their own"? Of course, what the Catechism is saying is a tautology, that is, something that we cannot ever disprove. Having said this, no one (except, perhaps, the Dimonds and their other cronies) are saying that the Orthodox are guilty of formal schism, only that they may be. In any case, they are separated, at least materially and perhaps (at least in the case of some or maybe "many") formally, from the Catholic Church (a fact that most of them would happily admit to), "outside of which no one at all will be saved."

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Is the soul of the declared formal heretic automatically judged by God as being morally culpable for the mortal sin of heresy - yes or no?

The answer is NO, case closed.

He may be guilty of schism before God - or not; and we are back to square one.

Don't take my word. Consider what the CCC says:

Don’t take your word for what? Your weak assertion that God does indeed judge each and every declared heretic who stands before Him to be morally culpable for the mortal sin of heresy?

You can’t actually believe this since you stated, even if rather begrudgingly, that you agree “Canonical judgments are reformable” and that the declared heretic may not be “truly guilty of heresy” before God. Of course, you follow this with your irrelevant “point”, which “is that if the Church can judge a man guilty of murder the Church can also judge him guilty of being a heretic, on both counts, at least to a moral certitude.”

Well of course the Church can and does make such objective judgments of moral certitude, just as criminal courts can convict a man for murder based on the same objective moral certainty (and can err in its fallible judgments). THE POINT BEING - THE CHURCH DOES NOT JUDGE THE SOUL WHEN MAKING SUCH FALLIBLE JUDGEMENTS, and God most certainly does NOT bind His own judgment of the soul to that of the Church if in fact the soul is not actually guilty of obstinate heresy.

But God DOES BIND Himself to all judgments of the Church by insisting that the person who is declared morally culpable must abide by the Church’s judgment and the penalties incurred, even if an injustice has occurred. God sometimes allows such crosses to be borne, but only for the spiritual benefit of individuals, and the Church.

Again, the Holy Ghost assists the Pope when exercising his supreme Apostolic Primacy over the laws and disciplines of the Church, but that assistance does not include an infallible immunity from any possibility of error in judgment, but only from giving harm to the Church.

Really, Jehanne, what is it that you do not understand, and why are you making this so complicated? Your “Don’t take my word” example from the “Only God forgives sin” section of the CCC only demonstrates how thorough is your confusion. Let’s look at the emphasized text under “Reconciliation with the Church”:

1445 The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.

Now let’s expose the folly of the erroneous sense you appear to be trying to sell, that because the soul of the declared heretic will be judged morally culpable before God unless he is first reconciled with the Church through forgiveness and restitution means that, even if he is not actually guilty of this sin, if he is not externally restored to communion with the Church (through no fault of his own), God will hold him culpable nonetheless.

Do you realize how silly that sounds?

Anything else you would like to throw at the wall, just for the sake of throwing something, anything, at the wall?

Well stated, Mike; I agree with everything that you said. Understand that,

MRyan wrote:But God DOES BIND Himself to all judgments of the Church by insisting that the person who is declared morally culpable must abide by the Church’s judgment and the penalties incurred, even if an injustice has occurred. God sometimes allows such crosses to be borne, but only for the spiritual benefit of individuals, and the Church.

applies to all the baptized,

MRyan wrote:unless he is first reconciled with the Church through forgiveness and restitution means that, even if he is not actually guilty of this sin, if he is not externally restored to communion with the Church (through no fault of his own), God will hold him culpable nonetheless.

Of course, as I stated before, how could anyone ever "know" that "what they do not know" was due "through no fault of their own"?! (Now, that seems silly!) The Church does not ask us to "presume" anything, except to proclaim the Truth, or "to evangelize all men." (CCC, #848)

Jehanne wrote:Well stated, Mike; I agree with everything that you said.

Thank you, Jehanne, and it’s good that we can finally find some common agreement.

Jehanne wrote:

Understand that,

MRyan wrote:

But God DOES BIND Himself to all judgments of the Church by insisting that the person who is declared morally culpable must abide by the Church’s judgment and the penalties incurred, even if an injustice has occurred. God sometimes allows such crosses to be borne, but only for the spiritual benefit of individuals, and the Church.

applies to all the baptized,

Yes, it does, and whether or not the Eastern Orthodox are presumed culpable for the objective state of schism (they are no longer presumed culpable), or that one does not know that one’s particular Church (or he) is in an objective state of schism, is irrelevant to the objective state itself, which in turn is irrelevant to one’s judgment before God for whatever culpability that may or may not exist.

The ecclesiastical “judgment” of the objective state (or not) of heresy or schism (against individuals, sects, or churches) is strictly a prudential matter (not to diminish the binding nature of the judgement - obedience, or the supreme authority of the judge), for the Church “judges” only whether the objective reality of a state of schism exists, and whether such schism is deemed formal (culpable) or only material. All such judgments are made within the objective order of moral certitude, without rendering subjective moral judgments of the heart.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

[this distorted interpretation suggests] unless he is first reconciled with the Church through forgiveness and restitution means that, even if he is not actually guilty of this sin, if he is not externally restored to communion with the Church (through no fault of his own), God will hold him culpable nonetheless.

Of course, as I stated before, how could anyone ever "know" that "what they do not know" was due "through no fault of their own"?! (Now, that seems silly!) The Church does not ask us to "presume" anything, except to proclaim the Truth, or "to evangelize all men." (CCC, #848)

He will “know” when he meets his Maker, who will reveal every secret of his heart.

And yes, the Church still teaches that her divine mission has not changed, that she is “to proclaim the Truth”; "to evangelize all men”.