Vatican II taught that one must be Catholic in order to be saved.

Jehanne Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:13 am

The Second Vatican Council, exercising its highest level of authority, in its foundational document Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, declared:

This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent... (Lumen Gentium, 51)

Of course, the Council of Florence declared/decreed:

No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Now, by the Law of Non-contradiction ("a proposition cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time"), Vatican II taught that "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ" (Lumen Gentium, 15) and the group of "Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church" (Lumen Gentium, 16) must both end their lives within "the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church".

Stating that "can an implicit desire produce its effect" (1949 Holy Office letter) simply leaves the judgment of an individual's soul to where that judgment belongs, to the One and Triune God alone.

George Brenner Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:38 pm

Vatican II taught that one must be Catholic in order to be saved.
Jehanne Today at 7:13 am

Yes, Vatican Council II did teach that one must be Catholic in order to be saved. The profound tragedy and Crisis of Faith is that since Vatican II hardly a cleric can be found who taught or does teach this basis of Jesus, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church outside which there is no Salvation.

tornpage Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:00 pm

Gentlemen,

I am curious as to where you get this from, this Vatican II teaching that one must be Catholic to be saved. Forget the citation to Florence, Jehanne - your understanding of it (or mine for that matter) means nothing in terms of what the fathers of Vatican II meant when they cited it.

So, where do you get this from? Especially considering the fact that the “Conciliar” Church has not asserted that one needs to explicitly believe in Christ to be saved. The teaching has in fact (or shall we say by deliberate and strong implication) been the opposite. It would be nice if you told the pope and the bishops that, Jehanne.

Of course, a broad enough definition of “Catholic” would do the trick. So, what’s your (the) definition?

Torn

Jehanne Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:54 pm

Lumen Gentium also referenced the Holy Office letter, which stated:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it...

Which "infallible statement"? Of course, there is only one which uses the phrase "no salvation outside the 'Catholic' Church" and that one comes from the Council of Florence, and per Vatican I:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14, ex cathedra: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, ex cathedra: "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."

the meaning given at Vatican II must be absolutely identical to what the Fathers at the Council of Florence understood their infallible definition to be and that same meaning (presumably) is what the 1949 Holy Office Letter is teaching us; that is, someone could be an "implicit member" of the Catholic Church, and by that very fact, be saved. However, the Holy Office letter attaches some stringent conditions to that membership:

1) "a person is involved in invincible ignorance" AND

2) "a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God..." AND

3) "that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity" AND

4) "unless a person has supernatural faith" AND

5) "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire."

HOWEVER, "they cannot be sure of their salvation," for how could someone ever know that which "they do not know" was "through no fault of their own"??? And, so, how could we, as traditional Catholics, "Feeneyites," etc., ever be harming someone by telling them "that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff"? Besides, if implicit faith and/or desire did not exist, at least potentially, then we, as Catholics, would be in the position where we could make judgments about the interior state of other person's soul, and of course, only the Triune God can do that! However, just because something is possible does not mean that it is probable.

MRyan Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:17 am

Jehanne wrote:Lumen Gentium also referenced the Holy Office letter, which stated:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it...

Which "infallible statement"? Of course, there is only one which uses the phrase "no salvation outside the 'Catholic' Church" and that one comes from the Council of Florence, and per Vatican I:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14, ex cathedra: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, ex cathedra: "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."

the meaning given at Vatican II must be absolutely identical to what the Fathers at the Council of Florence understood their infallible definition to be and that same meaning (presumably) is what the 1949 Holy Office Letter is teaching us; that is, someone could be an "implicit member" of the Catholic Church, and by that very fact, be saved. However, the Holy Office letter attaches some stringent conditions to that membership:

1) "a person is involved in invincible ignorance" AND

2) "a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God..." AND

3) "that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity" AND

4) "unless a person has supernatural faith" AND

5) "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire."

HOWEVER, "they cannot be sure of their salvation," for how could someone ever know that which "they do not know" was "through no fault of their own"??? And, so, how could we, as traditional Catholics, "Feeneyites," etc., ever be harming someone by telling them "that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff"? Besides, if implicit faith and/or desire did not exist, at least potentially, then we, as Catholics, would be in the position where we could make judgments about the interior state of other person's soul, and of course, only the Triune God can do that! However, just because something is possible does not mean that it is probable.

Quite so. Let’s stay with LG 16, as it is cited and translated by Ralph Martin in “Freeing the New Evangelization: Removing Doctrinal Confusion” (http://www.renewalministries.net/files/freeliterature/freeing_the_new_evangelization.pdf):

Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But very often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.( Cf Rom 1:21, 25) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

Martin explains:

[T]he possibility of salvation doesn’t exist in some neutral vacuum. There are opposing forces that seek to impel human beings to reject the light of conscience and prefer the works of darkness to the works of light, to seek self rather than God, and to do what satisfies the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, rather than the will of God (1 Jn. 2: 15-17). In other words, the world, the flesh and the devil are formidable obstacles to responding to the light and grace that God gives. The Council acknowledges such with a rather striking reference to the downward spiral triggered by bad conscience that is described in the first chapter of Romans.

It is precisely these human beings without the gospel who “very often” (“more often” is perhaps the best translation of the Latin at saepius) yield to the deception of the devil, the allure of the flesh and the world, the intellectual, moral and spiritual confusion that comes from pride. Such people become subject to the just judgment of God, his wrath, since their choice against grace, against conscience and the light is “inexcusable.” (Romans 1: 18-32)

So, “just because something is possible does not mean that it is probable” is true because “more often … they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator truth”.

Jehanne Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:17 am

The idea that "non-Catholics" can go to Heaven is nothing new (especially, if Wikipedia is to believed):

In Limbo reside the unbaptized and the virtuous pagans, who, though not sinful, did not accept Christ. Limbo shares many characteristics with the Asphodel Meadows; thus the guiltless damned are punished by living in a deficient form of Heaven. Without baptism ("the portal of the faith that you embrace"[6]) they lacked the hope for something greater than rational minds can conceive. Limbo includes green fields and a castle with seven gates to represent the seven virtues, the dwelling place of the wisest men of antiquity, including Virgil himself, as well as the Persian polymath Avicenna. In the castle Dante meets the poets Homer, Horace, Ovid, and Lucan, the Amazon queen Penthesilea, the mathematician Euclid, the scientist Pedanius Dioscorides, the statesman Cicero, the first doctor Hippocrates, the philosophers Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Averroes and many others, including Julius Caesar in his role as Roman general ("in his armor, falcon-eyed"[7]), Hector, Electra, Camilla, Latinus, Lucius Junius Brutus, Lucretia, and Orpheus. Interestingly, he also sees Saladin in Limbo (Canto IV). Dante implies that all virtuous non-Christians find themselves here, although he later encounters two (Cato of Utica and Statius) in Purgatory and two (Trajan and Ripheus) in Heaven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(Dante)#First_Circle_.28Limbo.29

Note that Trajan was born after Christ's Passion & Resurrection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan

as was Statius:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statius

tornpage Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:44 am

So now we're discussing possibility and probability? Of what?

Since the claim is that Vatican II taught that one must be "Catholic" be saved, I'm waiting for: a) a showing that Vatican II taught one must be Catholic to be saved, and b) a definition of "Catholic" (which apparently doesn't require explicit faith in Christ).

MRyan Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:56 am

tornpage wrote:
Gentlemen,

I am curious as to where you get this from, this Vatican II teaching that one must be Catholic to be saved. Forget the citation to Florence, Jehanne - your understanding of it (or mine for that matter) means nothing in terms of what the fathers of Vatican II meant when they cited it.

It comes from the dogma there is no salvation outside the Church. Understood correctly (as the Church has always understood it), this means than anyone who knowingly separates himself from, or refuses to enter, the Church, cannot be saved. It does not mean that only “Catholics” can be saved, but it does mean that one must be united to Christ (and thus, His Church), by (as a minimum) the internal supernatural bonds of faith and charity.

tornpage wrote:
So, where do you get this from? Especially considering the fact that the “Conciliar” Church has not asserted that one needs to explicitly believe in Christ to be saved. The teaching has in fact (or shall we say by deliberate and strong implication) been the opposite. It would be nice if you told the pope and the bishops that, Jehanne.

This appears to be a straw-man, as if the pre-“Conciliar” Church has already defined or settled definitively that one needs to explicitly believe in Christ to be saved. Your “opinion” that appears to want to elevate a tradition for an explicit faith in Christ to some infallible magisterial doctrine is just that, an opinion. You can hold this opinion, but if by doing so you also wish to accuse the Catholic Church of error for asserting that this opinion has never been elevated to a binding doctrine, and does in fact leave open the possibility for an implicit faith in Christ, that’s your particular can of worms, and one you cannot possibly win.

You also speak too broadly as if the so-called “Conciliar” Church’s teaching that recognizes that there may be instances where a non-explicit belief in our Lord may not pose as a barrier to unity with our Lord through an explicit faith in God and a vivifying charity (to include the desire to do the will of God in all things) is part of the ordinary means of salvation, when it is nothing of the sort. In fact, while we cannot know the limits of one’s inculpable ignorance, it is “most often” the case that “men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator (Rom 1:21, 25)". (LG 16)

tornpage wrote:
Of course, a broad enough definition of “Catholic” would do the trick. So, what’s your (the) definition?

There is only one definition of “Catholic” as the Church understands it, and it is understood in no other context than external membership in the one true universal Church of Christ, which of course necessitates an explicit belief in Christ.

Though formal membership in the Church (being a “Catholic”) does not define one’s internal unity with our Lord in charity (meaning a non-Catholic can be united to our Lord in these same bonds of faith and charity), it is also true that neither sanctification nor salvation can be found apart from (outside of) the salvific graces and justifying faith found only within Christ’s Mystical Body - the Catholic Church.

tornpage Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:20 am

tornpage wrote:

So, where do you get this from? Especially considering the fact that the “Conciliar” Church has not asserted that one needs to explicitly believe in Christ to be saved. The teaching has in fact (or shall we say by deliberate and strong implication) been the opposite. It would be nice if you told the pope and the bishops that, Jehanne.

This appears to be a straw-man, as if the pre-“Conciliar” Church has already defined or settled definitively that one needs to explicitly believe in Christ to be saved. Your “opinion” that appears to want to elevate a tradition for an explicit faith in Christ to some infallible magisterial doctrine is just that, an opinion.

Where do you see an opinion in that quote?

Is it possible for you to engage in a discussion with someone that actually concentrates on what they say during the discussion?

tornpage Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:26 am

You also speak too broadly as if the so-called “Conciliar” Church’s teaching that recognizes that there may be instances where a non-explicit belief in our Lord may not pose as a barrier to unity with our Lord through an explicit faith in God and a vivifying charity (to include the desire to do the will of God in all things) is part of the ordinary means of salvation, when it is nothing of the sort.

Here we go again.

Where am I speaking too broadly? Here's the sum total of what I said, which amounts to nothing more than some questions and an indication of what appears to be implications of what others have said. I said nothing about ordinary or extraordinary means of salvation:

Gentlemen,

I am curious as to where you get this from, this Vatican II teaching that one must be Catholic to be saved. Forget the citation to Florence, Jehanne - your understanding of it (or mine for that matter) means nothing in terms of what the fathers of Vatican II meant when they cited it.

So, where do you get this from? Especially considering the fact that the “Conciliar” Church has not asserted that one needs to explicitly believe in Christ to be saved. The teaching has in fact (or shall we say by deliberate and strong implication) been the opposite. It would be nice if you told the pope and the bishops that, Jehanne.

Of course, a broad enough definition of “Catholic” would do the trick. So, what’s your (the) definition?

Torn

So now we're discussing possibility and probability? Of what?

Since the claim is that Vatican II taught that one must be "Catholic" be saved, I'm waiting for: a) a showing that Vatican II taught one must be Catholic to be saved, and b) a definition of "Catholic" (which apparently doesn't require explicit faith in Christ).

tornpage Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:30 am

It does not mean that only “Catholics” can be saved, but it does mean that one must be united to Christ (and thus, His Church), by (as a minimum) the internal supernatural bonds of faith and charity.

There is only one definition of “Catholic” as the Church understands it, and it is understood in no other context than external membership in the one true universal Church of Christ, which of course necessitates an explicit belief in Christ.

In other words, Jehanne's assertion that Vatican II taught that only Catholics can be saved is false, both as to what Vatican II taught, and also, by the way, as to only "Catholics" being saved.

That's an answer.

Thanks.

MRyan Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:50 am

Session VI, of the Council of Trent:

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

Ch VI, ... Concerning this disposition [the desire thereof] 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; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, .... finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord. (The manner of preparation)

“LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE” to “Archbishop Richard J. Cushing

Given on August 8, 1949 explaining the true sense of Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.”

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

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).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6).

The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. VIII): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).

MRyan Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:54 am

tornpage wrote:
It does not mean that only “Catholics” can be saved, but it does mean that one must be united to Christ (and thus, His Church), by (as a minimum) the internal supernatural bonds of faith and charity.

There is only one definition of “Catholic” as the Church understands it, and it is understood in no other context than external membership in the one true universal Church of Christ, which of course necessitates an explicit belief in Christ.

In other words, Jehanne's assertion that Vatican II taught that only Catholics can be saved is false, both as to what Vatican II taught, and also, by the way, as to only "Catholics" being saved.

That's an answer.
Thanks.

I'm sorry, but where did Jehanne assert that Vatican II (or Florence, or the Church in general) taught that only Catholics can be saved?

Did I miss something?

MRyan Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:30 am

tornpage wrote:
You also speak too broadly as if the so-called “Conciliar” Church’s teaching that recognizes that there may be instances where a non-explicit belief in our Lord may not pose as a barrier to unity with our Lord through an explicit faith in God and a vivifying charity (to include the desire to do the will of God in all things) is part of the ordinary means of salvation, when it is nothing of the sort.
Here we go again.

Where am I speaking too broadly? Here's the sum total of what I said, which amounts to nothing more than some questions and an indication of what appears to be implications of what others have said. I said nothing about ordinary or extraordinary means of salvation:

Gentlemen,

I am curious as to where you get this from, this Vatican II teaching that one must be Catholic to be saved. Forget the citation to Florence, Jehanne - your understanding of it (or mine for that matter) means nothing in terms of what the fathers of Vatican II meant when they cited it.

So, where do you get this from?

Fair enough, but where did you get the idea that Jehanne asserted that Vatican II taught that "one must be Catholic to be saved"?

As far as I can tell, he said VCII must be read in harmony with Florence, neither of which asserted that one must be "Catholic" to be saved. He also said:

Vatican II taught that "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ" (Lumen Gentium, 15) and the group of "Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church" (Lumen Gentium, 16) must both end their lives within "the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church".

Where did you gleen from that that Jehanne asserted that "this Vatican II teaching" says "that one must be Catholic to be saved"? Jehanne may have taken this particular citation (of Florence) somewhat out of context since it is addressing only those who do NOT REMAIN within the Church and are culpable in their refusal to join her; but this citation can and should be read with the same understanding as the opening section of this same declaration which says "all those who are outside the catholic church" (not just "Jews or heretics and schismatics") "cannot share in eternal life ... unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives".

Did Jehanne not also say "The idea that "non-Catholics" can go to Heaven is nothing new" and make a reference to Dante "who implies that all virtuous non-Christians find themselves here [in Limbo], although he later encounters two (Cato of Utica and Statius) in Purgatory and two (Trajan and Ripheus) in Heaven."?

I agree that his "possibility" versus "probability" line of argumentation is a bit misleading (and somewhat self-serving), but it is also true that Lumen Gentium favors a more often than not probability of culpability for those who remain ignorant of the Gospel or unmoved by the light of grace.

It would appear that you are chasing a straw-man of your own creation, "an indication of what appears to be implications of what others have said".

Of course, Jehanne can clear all of this up, and if he did in fact suggest that VCII taught that only Catholics can be saved, I'll apologize for asserting that you are chasing a straw-man.

MRyan Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:23 pm

OK, Tornpage, I owe you an apology, for I just realized that the very title of this thread is "Vatican II taught that one must be Catholic in order to be saved."

Reading Jehanne's line of argumentation, I never would have guessed that he was making a defense of the title's assertion. I read it as just another one of his "extra ecclesium [null set] salus" bromides that tries to tell us that the "possibility" of salvation that is open to all men of good will is actually a "null set probability" for those who remain outside the visible Church, and then cites Florence to "prove" his case, as if it proves any such thing.

And just when I thought Jehanne was coming along!

I guess he will have to tell us what he means by "Catholic", after all.

MRyan Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:44 pm

Jehanne wrote:
Now, by the Law of Non-contradiction ("a proposition cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time"), Vatican II taught that "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ" (Lumen Gentium, 15) and the group of "Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church" (Lumen Gentium, 16) must both end their lives within "the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church".

Stating that "can an implicit desire produce its effect" (1949 Holy Office letter) simply leaves the judgment of an individual's soul to where that judgment belongs, to the One and Triune God alone.

It does not matter if only God knows with certainty those who are saved, and of those who are "joined" to His Mystical Body in the unifying bonds of supernatural faith and charity (whether "Catholic" or not); the Church makes it very clear that the possibility for this union with Him is real for all of those who love God and desire to do His will.

Your reference to the "law of non-contradiction" is bogus if you mean by this that VCII (Lumen Gentium) must be understood to mean "only Catholics can be saved", when this is "defined" nowhere by Florence, which declared "all those who are outside the catholic church" (not just "Jews or heretics and schismatics") "cannot share in eternal life ... unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives".

The Church has always understood this dogmatic declaration in the same sense, meaning the passage does not preclude someone from being joined to the Church through the extra-sacramental supernatural bonds of faith and charity, notwithstanding your "null set" silliness.

Jehanne Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:57 pm

Mike,

You've embraced the "null-set silliness," also; let's not forget that. You stated that Florence's declaration that "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains..." constitutes a "null set," at least with respect to the "in original sin alone" part. Okay, another post for another thread.

The late Father Karl Rahner popularized the phrase "anonymous Christian":

Anonymous Christian is the controversial notion introduced by the Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner (1904–1984) that declares that people who have never heard the Christian Gospel might be saved through Christ. Non-Christians could have "in [their] basic orientation and fundamental decision," Rahner wrote, "accepted the salvific grace of God, through Christ, although [they] may never have heard of the Christian revelation."[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian

So, your claim that one must have "explicit faith" in Jesus Christ to be a "Catholic" or a "Christian" is, per Rahner (whom I do not endorse), completely false. So, if one can be an "anonymous Christian" it stands to reason that one can be an "anonymous Catholic," also. Or, do you object to such terminology? If not, why object to the title of this thread, "Vatican II taught that one must be Catholic in order to be saved"? For, do you object to the term "anonymous Catholic" given what Pope Boniface VIII infallibly declared:

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

If someone is subject to the Roman Pontiff implicitly, how could such a person not be an "anonymous Catholic"? It would seem that if language and semantics are to have an meaning, then a non-Catholic would be someone who rejects submission to the Roman Pontiff. As it is, your characterization of "non-Catholics" are those who culpably reject the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff and those who implicity submit to the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and if so, such a category is far too broad. We need to define our terms better, even if Wikipedia (and others) fails to do so.

tornpage Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:32 pm

OK, Tornpage, I owe you an apology, for I just realized that the very title of this thread is "Vatican II taught that one must be Catholic in order to be saved."

I gladly accept the apology from you. The best of men acknowledge their errors and change their minds when confronted with an argument they can't answer.

That might be making a mountain out of a molehill in this instance, but the mountain is worth keeping in view, particularly in light of these exchanges we have around here.

tornpage Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:39 pm

I'd say Rahner's "anonymous Christian" has been adopted by the Magisterium:

JPII - General Audience, September 9, 1998

"Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Savior.”

JPII was quoting a Vatican congregation or something there.

Actually, JPII has people who have heard the gospel but not embraced it because of
"cultural" obstacles being saved by the Holy Ghost. I believe that would be in Redemptio Missio.

George Brenner Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:53 pm

Father Faber, From "The Precious Blood" pages 92 and 93

" If the precious Blood had been shed, and yet we had no priesthood, no sacraments, no sacramentals, no jurisdiction, no mystical life of the visible unity of the Church----life so it seems, would be almost intolerable. This is the condition of those outside the Church; and certainly as we grow older, as our experience widens, as our knowledge of ourselves deepens, as our acquaintance with mankind increases, the less hopeful do our ideas become regarding the salvation of those outside the Roman Church. we make the most we can of the uncovenanted mercies of God, of the invisible soul of the Church, of the teaching of invincible ignorance, of the easiness of making acts of contrition, and of the visible moral goodness among men; and YET what are these but straws in our own estimation; if our own chances of salvation had to lean their weight upon them? They wear out or they break down. They are fearfully counterweighted by other considerations. We have to draw on our imaginations in order to fill up the picture. They are but theories at best, theories unhelpful except to console those who are forward to be deceived for the sake of those they love,-- theories often very fatal by keeping our charity in check and interfering with that restlessness of converting love in season and out of seasons, and that impetuous agony of prayer, upon which God may have made the salvation of our friends depend. Alas ! the more familiar we ourselves become with the operations of grace, the further we advance into the spiritual life, the more we meditate on the character of God, and taste in contemplation the savor of his holiness, the more to our eyes does grace magnify itself inside the Church, and the more dense and forlorn becomes the darkness which is spread over those outside...... Would not the divine assurance of our salvation be a very heaven begun on earth? Yet the sacraments are the nearest approach to such a sweet assurance as the love of our heavenly Father saw to be expedient for the multitude of his children..... In truth, no created intelligence of angel or of man could have imagined it."

Any person who entered Heaven after Jesus founded the One, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church either died a Catholic or is now a Catholic in Heaven due to the unknown mercies of God. We must teach No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church always from the rigorist stance. As an elderly priest said to me over a year ago, ' I hope you (being me) do not believe that there is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church' at which I replied that for me there is absolutely no chance of entering Heaven without being a Catholic. Since Vatican II we have indeed watered down the necessity of being a Catholic to as Pope Pius XII warned to a meaningless formula. If those in the Church spent more time explaining and teaching the faith rather than a dialogue of erosion and compromise we would not have had the crisis of faith and ruin of souls we now find ourselves in.

Tornpage, yours is a fair question as to where Vatican II teaches that there is no Salvation Outside the Catholic Church or for me if you just reverse that and say that only by being Catholic is where Salvation is to be found, is in The documents of Vatican II. I need to get my copy out and reference the exact quotes but I believe it is in the prologue by Pope Paul VI which specifically says that this council abides and submits to all previous councils and Church teaching as this council was a pastoral council.

JMJ,

George

tornpage Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:57 pm

JPII, Redemptoris Missio

10. The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that "this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God."19

The footnote is to Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 22.

tornpage Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:02 pm

George,

that only by being Catholic is where Salvation is to be found, is in The documents of Vatican II. I need to get my copy out and reference the exact quotes but I believe it is in the prologue by Pope Paul VI which specifically says that this council abides and submits to all previous councils and Church teaching as this council was a pastoral council.

As I told Jehanne, then the question becomes how did Paul VI understand those councils and teachings, and how did the VII fathers and the Church interpret them.

I think Mike has accurately set forth the accepted understanding, the understanding of the Church and the theologians, regarding Florence.

Torn

MRyan Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:02 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You've embraced the "null-set silliness," also; let's not forget that. You stated that Florence's declaration that "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains..." constitutes a "null set," at least with respect to the "in original sin alone" part. Okay, another post for another thread.

I stated only that the possibility of a "null set" exists for infants who may not in fact reside in Limbo if God so chooses to save them. Nowhere did I suggest that this possibility eliminates the doctrine of Limbo, for we cannot know if Limbo actually exists or doesn't exist, and neither does the Church.

But, unlike the possibility of salvation for unbaptized infants, she knows with the certitude of faith that those who die in unity with Christ through the supernatural bonds of faith and charity have the assurance of salvation, whether they are formal "Catholic" members of the Church, or have the explicit faith of a catechumen, or not.

For you to invent a "null set" of non-formal members of Christ, and then to equate this with the possible "null set" of the Limbo of the Children is simply disingenuous, and is no different than arguing that, though "possible", the number of baptized adults who are capable of making a perfect act of contrition represents a "null set", and is similar in kind to the possible "null set" of the Limbo of the Children, when the Church anticipates the former as a real contingency, and can only hope in the latter.

But, that won't stop you from making these false comparisons or from failing to recognize the proper distinctions; you are seriously confused.

Jehanne wrote:The late Father Karl Rahner popularized the phrase "anonymous Christian":

Anonymous Christian is the controversial notion introduced by the Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner (1904–1984) that declares that people who have never heard the Christian Gospel might be saved through Christ. Non-Christians could have "in [their] basic orientation and fundamental decision," Rahner wrote, "accepted the salvific grace of God, through Christ, although [they] may never have heard of the Christian revelation."[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian

So, your claim that one must have "explicit faith" in Jesus Christ to be a "Catholic" or a "Christian" is, per Rahner (whom I do not endorse), completely false.

What are you talking about? An explicit faith in Christ is necessary, but not intrinsically necessary if belief in our Lord can be supplied though an explicit faith in God ("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"), AS THE CHURCH TEACHES!

Why do you think I care what Rahner taught when such magisterial documents as Lumen Gentium and Dominus Iesus do not support his teaching?

Jehanne wrote:
So, if one can be an "anonymous Christian" it stands to reason that one can be an "anonymous Catholic," also. Or, do you object to such terminology? If not, why object to the title of this thread, "Vatican II taught that one must be Catholic in order to be saved"? For, do you object to the term "anonymous Catholic" given what Pope Boniface VIII infallibly declared:

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

If someone is subject to the Roman Pontiff implicitly, how could such a person not be an "anonymous Catholic"? It would seem that if language and semantics are to have an meaning, then a non-Catholic would be someone who rejects submission to the Roman Pontiff. As it is, your characterization of "non-Catholics" are those who culpably reject the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff and those who implicity submit to the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and if so, such a category is far too broad. We need to define our terms better, even if Wikipedia (and others) fails to do so.

This is utter nonsense, for your thread title does not say "Vatican II taught that one must be at least an anonymous Catholic to be saved", it says "Vatican II taught that one must be Catholic in order to be saved."

I object to the term "anonymous Catholic" for the same reason that I object to the term "anonymous Christian", for the Church does not use such terms. So why should I?

The only one who needs to define his terms is you, and it does not appear that you know what the term "Catholic" actually means.

Furthermore, the Church has NEVER taught that subjection to the Holy Father must be "explicit" for true unity with Christ to become effective.

MRyan Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:15 pm

tornpage wrote:
OK, Tornpage, I owe you an apology, for I just realized that the very title of this thread is "Vatican II taught that one must be Catholic in order to be saved."

I gladly accept the apology from you. The best of men acknowledge their errors and change their minds when confronted with an argument they can't answer.

That might be making a mountain out of a molehill in this instance, but the mountain is worth keeping in view, particularly in light of these exchanges we have around here.

True enough, but I still find it amusing that Jehanne does not even realize that his line of argumentation actually refutes the premise of his thread.

I think I now understand where he is going, and that is to equate the necessity of being "Catholic" with being subject to the Roman Pontiff and to being a member of the Catholic Church, all of which are necessary to salvation in the extrinsic sense, but none of which are absolutely necessary in the intrinsic sense. To this sense belong such intrinsic necessities as supernatural faith and charity, the gifts and possessions of which place one in unity with our Lord, and by extension (and necessity), with the one true Church of Christ.

But he does not appear to know how to draw the necessary distinctions.

Jehanne Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:43 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You've embraced the "null-set silliness," also; let's not forget that. You stated that Florence's declaration that "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains..." constitutes a "null set," at least with respect to the "in original sin alone" part. Okay, another post for another thread.
I stated only that the possibility of a "null set" exists for infants who may not in fact reside in Limbo if God so chooses to save them. Nowhere did I suggest that this possibility eliminates the doctrine of Limbo, for we cannot know if Limbo actually exists or doesn't exist, and neither does the Church.

Even the Theological Commission admits that the doctrine of Limbo was taught "for centuries"; are you now saying that the Church taught a doctrine which she "did not know" was true?

MRyan wrote:But, unlike the possibility of salvation for unbaptized infants, she knows with the certitude of faith that those who die in unity with Christ through the supernatural bonds of faith and charity have the assurance of salvation, whether they are formal "Catholic" members of the Church, or have the explicit faith of a catechumen, or not.

I agree. If true, would not such individuals have died within the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church"? Also, if such an individual did "die in unity with Christ through the supernatural bonds of faith and charity" are you saying that it is impossible that the Holy Spirit may reveal, explicitly, the Truths of the Catholic Faith to that person?

Also, Mike, keep in mind the following:

All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged. (Lumen Gentium, 14)

I want you to know that you are one of the most uncharitable individuals whom I have ever met.

columba Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:33 pm

How tempted I am to join in, but really, I must be more diciplined in the use of my time. Very Happy

By rereading many, previous, similar threads I could determine the likely fruits of this particular thread. But what the heck! I never was so diciplined that a little temptation couldn't suffice to rob me of it. Smile

Let's say (for argument sake) that the Catholic Church did infact teach that there was an internal bond by which those ignorantly existing outside her visible structure could gain salvation, we would have to conclude that the Catholic Church was wrong in this belief. Why? Because she would be denying -ipso facto -that she was the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Why? Because every religion could then claim (quite justifiably) that they themselves (their religion) was the true religion.

Let's take the muslims for instance; They too believe (falsely) that they are the one and only true religion and that all who are not muslim will be damned. And let's say they proclaimed a muslim dogma which stated; "All those existing outside the muslim faith, Jews, Pagans, Heritics and Christians, will all be damned unless before deah they embrace the muslin faith. But then (let's say) they made allowances for those who were ignorant of the muslim religion (through no fault of their own) could also be saved by an invisible bond of implicit faith (whereby they would, if they knew better, become visible muslims) and that they lived their lives in accord with muslim principles without ever having heard of Mohammed.

That would mean that we (Catholics) would be saved through Mohammed because, if we (Catholics) had known that only through the "prophet" Mohammed could we be saved, we would immediately have embraced the Islamic faith.
So then, all religions can now claim to be the one, true religion by maintaining that their god is the only true god, and, because he/she is the only god, everyone who is saved outside the visiible bounds of their' religion, has been saved through their implicit faith in that god. Implicit faith works for all religions does it not?
And what's to say that those who are given a fools pardon (the invincibly ignorant) and are considered internal members of the Catholic Church, aren't infact invincibly ignorant of Islam.

What utter diabolical nonsense is what I say. If there is one true faith, then only by being a visible member of that one true faith can one hope to be saved. Everything else is wishful thinking and total religious indifferentism.

Jehanne Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:48 pm

Interesting analysis, Columbia. Regardless, the Second Vatican Council reaffirmed the teaching of the Council of Florence which declared that "No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Now Mike will say that the Council of Florence really did not mean "no one" but was only talking about "canonical Catholics" who were already formal members of the Catholic Church and such an interpretation is manifestly absurd. Whether the bonds of an individual were "implicit" or "explicit" is irrelevant, any individual who "is to be saved" must, 1) "before death they are joined with Her", and 2) after being joined, "remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church". That is what Vatican II taught and it appears to everyone without exception, whether Catholic, "Christian," Muslim, Jew, pagan, atheist, "invincibly ignorant," "through no fault of their own," etc., etc. Only Catholics can be saved whether they are "anonymous" or otherwise, and for the purposes of this post, I am defining anyone as being "Catholic" who is in a state of grace and is part of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Catholic Church.

George Brenner Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:43 pm

There have been far too many post Vatican II and present Clerics, religious and laymen who mocked, corrupted and spun the dogmatic teachings of Popes along with councils, many Church Fathers and countless Saints. There are serious flaws, falsehoods and interpretations of Vatican II that have been destructive to the stability of our Catholic faith and thus the current Church crisis. Modernist thinking pervaded in forging Catholicism to compromise and dilute its sacred liturgy and water down the necessity of belonging to the one true Church for Salvation into a one world partial communion affiliation that can be pleasing to God if only one is sincere in their search for truth. Dogma is no longer taught in pure and undefiled accuracy. It is as if the Church were embarrassed or lost its will to follow the charge of Jesus in its duty and absolute mission to preach, teach and convert modern man. Clarity in teaching the faith following Vatican II has been a dismal failure and places those who are expected to lead souls to Heaven in grave peril.

Pope Eugene IV, in the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441, who proclaimed ex cathedra: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

JMJ,

George

MRyan Sun Oct 21, 2012 7:56 am

Jehanne wrote:Interesting analysis, Columbia. Regardless, the Second Vatican Council reaffirmed the teaching of the Council of Florence which declared that "No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Now Mike will say that the Council of Florence really did not mean "no one" but was only talking about "canonical Catholics" who were already formal members of the Catholic Church and such an interpretation is manifestly absurd.

As "absurd" as then saying:

any individual who "is to be saved" must, 1) "before death they are joined with Her", and 2) after being joined, "remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church"

So you recognize precisely what I said, that the Church recognizes that the necessity of being "joined" to the Church does NOT preclude a non-Catholic of good will from being united with ("joined to") Christ (and the Church) in the supernatural bonds of faith and charity.

And so, "Whether the bonds of an individual were 'implicit' or 'explicit' is [NOT] irrelevant" for you do in fact recognize that Florence does not dogmatically militate against an "implicit" desire for membership in the Church and subjection to the Roman Pontiff from being realized in these same bonds of faith and charity (such as in the case of the unbaptized martyr and the catechumen).

Furthermore, you do not get to re-define the definition of "Catholic" for the purpose of this post when all you have done is to confuse the issue.

Anyone who is in a state of grace is already "joined to the Church" in the bonds of faith and charity, but that does not make that person "Catholic", which is defined as "any person who, having been baptized, does not adhere to any non-Catholic religion or perform any act with the intention or effect of excluding himself from the Church". (Donald Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, Tan, 3rd Edition, 1958)

This is why the title of your thread is entirely misleading and why your statement that "Only Catholics can be saved" is false. As I said, you don't even realize that your various proofs only serve to refute your revised definition and assertion.

One can in fact be joined to Christ and His Church "in desire" through the bonds of faith and charity, but that internal bond does NOT a "Catholic" make, and changing the definition "for the purpose of this post" does not change that fact.

MRyan Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:14 am

Jehanne wrote:

We need to define our terms better, even if Wikipedia (and others) fails to do so.

No, you have failed to do so by playing fast and loose with the definition of "Catholic", "for the purpose of this post".

Define your terms as the Church defines them, and we can avoid these unnecessary excursions and accusations of being "uncharitable" (for identifying the error).

Jehanne Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:55 am

MRyan wrote:And so, "Whether the bonds of an individual were 'implicit' or 'explicit' is [NOT] irrelevant" for you do in fact recognize that Florence does not dogmatically militate against an "implicit" desire for membership in the Church and subjection to the Roman Pontiff from being realized in these same bonds of faith and charity (such as in the case of the unbaptized martyr and the catechumen).

Here is what the 1949 Holy Office Letter stated for a "non-Catholic" to be saved:

1) "a person is involved in invincible ignorance" AND

2) "a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God..." AND

3) "that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity" AND

4) "unless a person has supernatural faith" AND

5) "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire."

6) "at least he be united to her by desire and longing."

The Letter also stated:

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

Interested readers can verify the above for themselves:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm

Okay, you don't like the term "anonymous Catholic" and/or "anonymous Christian," and so apparently, you disagree with the Wikipedia article which stated:

Karl Rahner's concept of Anonymous Christian was one of the most influential theological ideals to affect the Second Vatican Council.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian

Now, of course, I share the SSPX's POV on this, in that, it seems that if an individual is fulfilling conditions #1 through #6, it is certainly conceivable to me that the Holy Spirit would reveal to such a person the necessary truths of the Catholic faith, especially given the fact that the Letter also stated "among the commandments of Christ...to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar." And, you, I believe, agree that such a notion is not impossible. In any case, if conditions #1 through #6 are, indeed, fulfilled in a "non-Catholic" I cannot see how such an individual would not be "within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." So, if the Second Vatican Council was "endorsing" the 1949 Holy Office letter (as does the CCC) by citing it and reaffirming the "decrees of Florence", then it seems that everyone must end his or her life "within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

MRyan Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:35 am

Jehanne,

You can spare us of this seriously flawed attempt at demonstrating (so you would seem to suggest) that the 1949 Holy Office Letter contradicted itself by affirming that one may be joined to the Church by desire, while it also said “we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.”

You can also spare us these logical fallacies and simply recognize that the Holy Office was being perfectly consistent while you are being totally inconsistent with your false re-definition of a “Catholic” and your assertion that "Only Catholics can be saved”. Your metaphor may sound pleasing to you and to George, but it is entirely misleading, and in fact, false.

You are simply avoiding the issue and erecting straw-man arguments which once again appear to be an exercise in throwing stuff on the wall to see if anything sticks. That certain Fathers of the Council may have been influenced by Karl Rahner is irrelevant to the truth the Council actually teaches.

For example, you say:

In any case, if conditions #1 through #6 are, indeed, fulfilled in a "non-Catholic" I cannot see how such an individual would not be "within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." So, if the Second Vatican Council was "endorsing" the 1949 Holy Office letter (as does the CCC) by citing it and reaffirming the "decrees of Florence", then it seems that everyone must end his or her life "within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

See how you simply conflate being “joined to the Church” with being “Catholic”, when the latter can be fulfilled only by actual water baptism and external unity with the Church, while the former can be fulfilled by an internal unity when an external unity may be lacking in re, but not in voto?

The desired end is the same, but not the objective (external) reality. A catechumen is still a catechumen, and a non-Catholic is still a non-Catholic, whether they are united to our Lord and to the Church in the bonds of faith and charity, or not. In the case of the former, the Church already recognizes him as one of her own, even if he is not yet a “Catholic”, while she never recognizes a non-catechumen as one of her own, except to the extent that God knows his true state.

Jehanne Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:05 am

Mike,

Stop saying the "bonds of faith and charity"; that is not what the Holy Office taught. What the Holy Office taught is the "bonds of supernatural faith and perfect charity"; confirming one's will to that of the Triune God; having a certain desire and yearning, albeit unconscious, to be united with the Catholic Church; and all the while being in a state of "invincible ignorance."

Most Americans would say that they have "faith in God" and a "love of God," but seriously Mike, do you think that most Americans have a "supernatural faith in God" and a "perfect love of God" and at the same time wish their "will to be confirmed to that God," which, as the Church teaches, means conformity with the natural law?

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.

It is easy to see, per the Council of Florence, how someone with "supernatural faith" and a "perfect love of God" could be "within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" whether one wants to apply the label of "Catholic" to them or not. Just having "the bonds of faith and charity" does not, however, seem to "cut it".

George Brenner Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:26 am

That the following is true and is beyond any doubt in my mind.

Here is what the 1949 Holy Office Letter stated for a "non-Catholic" to be saved:

1) "a person is involved in invincible ignorance" AND

2) "a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God..." AND

3) "that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity" AND

4) "unless a person has supernatural faith" AND

5) "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire."

6) "at least he be united to her by desire and longing."

Just as true is my oft repeated quotation by Father Faber on the realistic possibilities of one being saved without being in fact a true Catholic along with the help of the Sacraments and Body and Blood of Christ. Even with the Sacraments, confession, Holy Communion and the Mass we still must die in the state of sanctifying grace and free from mortal sin to be worthy of Purgatory/Heaven. If we had the fervor of Saints in teaching , explaining and converting non Catholics to the One , True Faith instead of as most have had since Vatican II in embracing non Catholics as simply kissing cousins we would not have had the the crisis of Faith that we are now in. Vatican II was a legitimate Council of the Church BUT the implementation, partial destruction of the liturgy, communion in the hand, Mass in the vernacular and covered up clerical abuses at all levels was never the intent of the Holy Fathers during and after Vatican II. What the Hell happened as a question is also the answer for Hell did happen and Satan has had a field day. Those who do not accept this or understand this are at best in denial. It yet remains to be undone. We must teach the Catholic faith with a capital "C" and certainly not with arrogance but never in some mumbo jumbo feel good inclusive one world given implicit never intended nonsense membership. A person certainly may be saved as a possibility under the parameters of the Holy Office letter but lets keep it in proper perspective. This is why it can take so long for the majority of Bishops to FINALLY say that Biden should be denied Communion as he is not a practicing Catholic. A priest I knew left the priesthood/ He was asked why politicians who outwardly were pro murder(abortion) and yet given Communion , he answered "because the Bishops have no backbone. This was very sad but he was accurate." Problems are always with us. Jesus had to deal with denial, deceit, betrayal and doubt from His own chosen Apostles. It is no surprise that the Holy Father will always have challenges and heartache to overcome.

It is not for me to judge anyone for judgement belongs to God and yet I have never come into personal contact in discussions that would seem to qualify under the above six points of the 1949 Holy Office letter. Has there been or will there be Salvation under these 6 points is left to the mercies of God and not to us on earth as a matter of known fact and back door eccumencism. I offer two examples.

1. Many many years of ongoing discussions. Profile: Divorced Catholic who remarried and has been Protestant for over twenty years and admits knowledge and necessity of belonging to the One, true Catholic Church from childhood and young adult years. Now believes that was wrong and his protestant faith will provide the path to his salvation. This person as far as I can determine he is exceptionally good, moral and seeks to serve God in a reverent manner. He has told me that he now believes that when he receives communion at his service that it IS the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ. So what will be his eternal outcome? What did and would Pope Eugene IV say? Of course I realize that almost all Catholics have thrown Pope Eugene IV along with countless others under the bus. The question is what will God say to him?

2. Someone that I have known for over 35 years. Profile: Has always seemed to me to be a really 'religious" person. Loves God and Jesus. He thinks that Blessed Mother is blown way out of proportion by Catholics and in no way deserves the special place that we hold for Our Lady. In telling him that the Catholic Church is the One true Church etc etc.... he answers that he disagrees and will continue on his current path and yet I will keep trying to convert. What will God say to him when he dies? Might God say I sent you George but you would not accept my Son's teaching? I do not know for the judgement and the mercies of God are not for me to question or even worry about.......and yet if we do not teach our Faith and are more concerned about someones longing and desiring in some unconscious manner to be Catholic implicitly, we fail miserably in teaching our Catholic Faith.

JMJ,

George

tornpage Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:18 pm

George,

Vatican II was a legitimate Council of the Church BUT the implementation, partial destruction of the liturgy, communion in the hand, Mass in the vernacular and covered up clerical abuses at all levels was never the intent of the Holy Fathers during and after Vatican II.

They never intended it?

All of the above "abuses" happened under their aegis and with their approval: the creation and implementation of essentially a new Latin rite, a "novus ordo"; approval of vernacular translations in every Catholic nation that had a consecration formula of the Precious Blood which had never existed before in any rite of the Church in its vast history("for all," with no qualifying language betokening its efficacy only for the elect); approval of communion in the hand. In short, all of your examples done by, or initiated under and approved by, "the Holy Fathers" of Vatican II.

There is an abundance of material covering the "revolution" - you know, the Church's "1789" - in great detail: Father Kramer's The Devil's Final Battle; Atila Sinke Guimaraes' books, In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, etc.; Christopher A. Ferrara's and Thomas E. Woods, Jr.'s The Great Facade; Romano Amerio's Iota Sum . . . there's a ton more.

They laid the egg; they sat on the egg; they hatched the egg . . .

I have a different view of their "intent."

But it is clear this is God's will, the "passion" of the Church. And it is also clear that Our Lord and His Mother will triumph, and that the Church will correct these errors and abuses.

I hope I live to see it.

I hope I live to see Our Lady's Immaculate Heart triumph, for it will.

columba Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:03 pm

tornpage wrote:
They laid the egg; they sat on the egg; they hatched the egg . . .

I have a different view of their "intent."

But it is clear this is God's will, the "passion" of the Church. And it is also clear that Our Lord and His Mother will triumph, and that the Church will correct these errors and abuses.

I hope I live to see it.

I hope I live to see Our Lady's Immaculate Heart triumph, for it will.

A story is usually spoilt when one reads the final chapter first. In this case it's comfortng to know how it all ends. A good or bad outcome for each individual will depend on which side one is on in the final battle. There always two sides in every battle but it's apparent that the two sides in this particular battle belong to the same army/body. One fighting for self destruction and the other for preservation.

MRyan Sun Oct 21, 2012 6:59 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Stop saying the "bonds of faith and charity"; that is not what the Holy Office taught. What the Holy Office taught is the "bonds of supernatural faith and perfect charity"; confirming one's will to that of the Triune God; having a certain desire and yearning, albeit unconscious, to be united with the Catholic Church; and all the while being in a state of "invincible ignorance."

Stop pretending that I do not know what I am talking about when I have repeated ad nauseum that the unifying and salvific bonds of faith and charity are the supernatural bonds of faith and a supernatural charity (which of course is "perfect" charity"). Do you think that I do not know what the Holy Office Letter actually says when I have cited it verbatim on numerous occasions?!

You are simply playing word games and trying to turn the tables on me - and it won't work. What you refuse to acknowledge is that your re-definition of a “Catholic” (“for the purpose of this post”, no less) is false.

Jehanne wrote:Most Americans would say that they have "faith in God" and a "love of God," but seriously Mike, do you think that most Americans have a "supernatural faith in God" and a "perfect love of God" and at the same time wish their "will to be confirmed to that God," which, as the Church teaches, means conformity with the natural law?

What do you mean, a "supernatural faith in God" and a "perfect love of God" and at the same time [those who] wish their "will to be confirmed to that God," which, as the Church teaches, means conformity with the natural law?"? I have no idea what you are talking about.

But there you go again conflating “possibility” with “probability” as if the Church teaches that “most” non-Catholics “have a ‘supernatural faith in God’ and a ‘perfect love of God’ and at the same time wish their ‘will to be confirmed to that God,’ when the Church can assume no such thing, and in fact, as I said previously, she has declared just the opposite. Once again, I said:

“Let’s stay with LG 16, as it is cited and translated by Ralph Martin in ‘Freeing the New Evangelization: Removing Doctrinal Confusion’: (http://www.renewalministries.net/files/freeliterature/freeing_the_new_evangelization.pdf):

Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But very often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.( Cf Rom 1:21, 25) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

“Martin explains:

[T]he possibility of salvation doesn’t exist in some neutral vacuum. There are opposing forces that seek to impel human beings to reject the light of conscience and prefer the works of darkness to the works of light, to seek self rather than God, and to do what satisfies the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, rather than the will of God (1 Jn. 2: 15-17). In other words, the world, the flesh and the devil are formidable obstacles to responding to the light and grace that God gives. The Council acknowledges such with a rather striking reference to the downward spiral triggered by bad conscience that is described in the first chapter of Romans.

It is precisely these human beings without the gospel who “very often” (“more often” is perhaps the best translation of the Latin at saepius) yield to the deception of the devil, the allure of the flesh and the world, the intellectual, moral and spiritual confusion that comes from pride. Such people become subject to the just judgment of God, his wrath, since their choice against grace, against conscience and the light is “inexcusable.” (Romans 1: 18-32)

“So, ‘just because something is possible does not mean that it is probable’ is true because ‘more often [than not] … they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator truth’.”

Now, if Dr. Ralph Martin of Charismatic Renewal fame recognizes the limitations and extreme difficulty of being saved without the objective appearance of having received the light of faith and when outside of the visible structure of the Catholic Church, and cites Lumen Gentium and Holy Scripture as his authoritative magisterial proofs for why such souls “very often” (’more often’ is perhaps the best translation of the Latin at saepius) yield to the deception of the devil, the allure of the flesh and the world, the intellectual, moral and spiritual confusion that comes from pride. Such people become subject to the just judgment of God, his wrath, since their choice against grace, against conscience and the light is ‘inexcusable’”, and his articles and recent book on the same subject receive wide ecclesiastical and Catholic acclaim, then the tide may in fact be turning (in this the “Year of Faith”) in favor of “Doctrinal Clarity for the New Evangelization” and against “a ‘culture of universalism,’ even within the Church” (e.g. the universalism of Rahner and Balthasar); and against an all too prevalent mind-set that Ralph Martin describes like this:

While neither Rahner, Balthasar, nor Sachs formally teach universalism the questions they raise about whether it is really possible for human freedom to finally reject God have contributed to an atmosphere of universalism. If I were to describe how many Catholics today think about the issue of the likelihood of those who are not explicitly Christians being saved, I would describe it like this:

Wide is the gate and easy the way that leads to salvation and many there are who are entering by it. Narrow the gate and difficult the way that leads to hell and few there are who are taking that way.
The difficulty with this prevailing mentality is that it is the exact opposite of what Jesus teaches about our situation.

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. (Mt 7:13-14) RSV

Or the parallel text in Luke:

Someone asked him, “Lord, will only a few people be saved?” He answered them, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough. After the master of the house has arisen and locked the door, then will you stand outside knocking and saying, ‘Lord, open the door for us.’ He will say to you in reply, ‘I do not know where you are from.’ And you will say, ‘We ate and drank in your company and you taught in our streets.’ Then he will say to you, ‘I do not know where (you) are from. Depart from me, all you evildoers!’” (Lk 13:23-30) NAB
These are not isolated texts. The whole message of the NT is that one does not enter the kingdom by drifting along with the prevailing culture, the “broad way” of Mt 7:13-14.”

Seems pretty clear to me.

Jehanne wrote:

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.
It is easy to see, per the Council of Florence, how someone with "supernatural faith" and a "perfect love of God" could be "within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" whether one wants to apply the label of "Catholic" to them or not. Just having "the bonds of faith and charity" does not, however, seem to "cut it".

And NO ONE, least of all me, said that a non-sacramental and a non-supernatural faith and charity places a non-Catholic "within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church".

But do not confuse supernatural (meaning divinely revealed) Faith and “perfect” charity by which one loves God above all things with the supernatural virtues of the same that are infused by God in the sacrament, or as a result (by the desire thereof) of these same dispositions.

That you would even suggest that I suggested that a non-supernatural faith and a less than "perfect" charity can unite someone to our Lord and His Church is utter nonsense, and you, and everyone else on this forum (who have actually read my posts), know it. This a smokescreen and a diversion from your new definition of what makes someone "Catholic".

MRyan Sun Oct 21, 2012 7:17 pm

tornpage wrote:George,

Vatican II was a legitimate Council of the Church BUT the implementation, partial destruction of the liturgy, communion in the hand, Mass in the vernacular and covered up clerical abuses at all levels was never the intent of the Holy Fathers during and after Vatican II.

They never intended it?

All of the above "abuses" happened under their aegis and with their approval: the creation and implementation of essentially a new Latin rite, a "novus ordo"; approval of vernacular translations in every Catholic nation that had a consecration formula of the Precious Blood which had never existed before in any rite of the Church in its vast history("for all," with no qualifying language betokening its efficacy only for the elect); approval of communion in the hand. In short, all of your examples done by, or initiated under and approved by, "the Holy Fathers" of Vatican II.

This is utter nonsense, as if the changes you just mentioned such as a so-called "partial destruction of the liturgy" (the Novus Ordo), communion in the hand, Mass in the vernacular, and the approved ICEL translation "for all" are themselves "abuses" (rather than being easily abused or misunderstood).

Now you want to place some type of a nefarious or malicious "intent" at the feet of the Vicars of Christ -- and I'll be darned it it doesn't sound like you are going down the old sede trail.

MRyan Sun Oct 21, 2012 7:56 pm

columba wrote:
Let's say (for argument sake) that the Catholic Church did in fact teach that there was an internal bond by which those ignorantly existing outside her visible structure could gain salvation, we would have to conclude that the Catholic Church was wrong in this belief. Why? Because she would be denying -ipso facto -that she was the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Why? Because every religion could then claim (quite justifiably) that they themselves (their religion) was the true religion.

The inanity of such a logical fallacy never ceases to amaze me.

Gosh, Columba, how I’ve missed your posts!

Let’s try and unpack this.

Here you are saying “Let's say (for argument sake) that the Catholic Church did in fact teach that there was an internal bond by which those ignorantly existing outside her visible structure could gain salvation”, when IN FACT the Catholic Church teaches through her infallible magisterium that the gifts of faith and sanctifying grace can be realized outside of her visible structure, but never apart from their divine and ecclesiastical source – the Church (the Holy Ghost does not operate apart from the Mystical Body).

I know your response should not surprise me (after all, you are the same person who said that it has been solemnly “defined” that a non-sacramentally baptized martyr who dies for love of Christ cannot be saved), but you then reject this magisterial (and traditional) doctrine of the Church “Because she [the Church] would be denying -ipso facto -that she was the Church founded by Jesus Christ.”

What? Well, you see, if it is possible for someone to be saved by the grace and faith of the one true Church while remaining (objectively) in another religion, why that person's false religion (which cannot possibly know that one of its adherents was saved by and in the one true Church), "could then claim (quite justifiably) that they themselves (their religion) was the true religion"!

I swear, one cannot make this stuff up. I simply cannot follow such penetrating “logic”.

tornpage Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:04 pm

This is utter nonsense . . .

Opinions. Everyone’s got one.

George Brenner Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:27 pm

As taken from the National Post: "Canadian Cardinal Marc Quellet, Prefect, Congregation of Bishops to set tone for Church" August 19, 2010 :

Interpretations of the Second Vatican Council
Cardinal Ouellet believes that many Catholics interpreted the teachings of the Second Vatican Council in far too liberal a way and by doing so disconnected from the core of their faith. Relativism led to priests abandoning celibacy, a drop in proper religious education, and a general infusion of leftist politics — all of which was not the intention of the council. Ouellet stated: “After the council, the sense of mission was replaced by the idea of dialogue. That we should dialogue with other faiths and not attempt to bring them the Gospels, to convert. Since then, relativism has been developing more broadly.”

JMJ,

George

MRyan Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:02 am

IOANNES PAULUS PP. II

REDEMPTORIS MISSIO

On the permanent validity of the Church's missionary mandate

Conversion and Baptism

46. The proclamation of the Word of God has Christian conversion as its aim: a complete and sincere adherence to Christ and his Gospel through faith. Conversion is a gift of God, a work of the Blessed Trinity. It is the Spirit who opens people's hearts so that they can believe in Christ and "confess him'' (cf. 1 Cor 12:3); of those who draw near to him through faith Jesus says: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (Jn 6:44).

From the outset, conversion is expressed in faith which is total and radical, and which neither limits nor hinders God's gift. At the same time, it gives rise to a dynamic and lifelong process which demands a continual turning away from "life according to the flesh" to "life according to the Spirit" (cf. Rom 8:3-13). Conversion means accepting, by a personal decision, the saving sovereignty of Christ and becoming his disciple.

The Church calls all people to this conversion, following the example of John the Baptist, who prepared the way for Christ by "preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mk 1:4), as well as the example of Christ himself, who "after John was arrested,...came into Galilee preaching the Gospel of God and saying: 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the Gospel'" (Mk 1:14-15).

Nowadays the call to conversion which missionaries address to non-Christians is put into question or passed over in silence. It is seen as an act of "proselytizing"; it is claimed that it is enough to help people to become more human or more faithful to their own religion, that it is enough to build communities capable of working for justice, freedom, peace and solidarity. What is overlooked is that every person has the right to hear the "Good News" of the God who reveals and gives himself in Christ, so that each one can live out in its fullness his or her proper calling. This lofty reality is expressed in the words of Jesus to the Samaritan woman: "If you knew the gift of God," and in the unconscious but ardent desire of the woman: "Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst" (Jn 4:10, 15).

47. The apostles, prompted by the Spirit, invited all to change their lives, to be converted and to be baptized. Immediately after the event of Pentecost, Peter spoke convincingly to the crowd: "When they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles, 'Brethren, what shall we do?' And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'" (Acts 2:37-38). That very day some three thousand persons were baptized. And again, after the healing of the lame man, Peter spoke to the crowd and repeated: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out!" (Acts 3:19)

Conversion to Christ is joined to Baptism not only because of the Church's practice, but also by the will of Christ himself, who sent the apostles to make disciples of all nations and to baptize them (cf. Mt 28:19). Conversion is also joined to Baptism because of the intrinsic need to receive the fullness of new life in Christ. As Jesus says to Nicodemus: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (Jn 3:5). In Baptism, in fact, we are born anew to the life of God's children, united to Jesus Christ and anointed in the Holy Spirit. Baptism is not simply a seal of conversion, and a kind of external sign indicating conversion and attesting to it. Rather, it is the sacrament which signifies and effects rebirth from the Spirit, establishes real and unbreakable bonds with the Blessed Trinity, and makes us members of the Body of Christ, which is the Church.

All this needs to be said, since not a few people, precisely in those areas involved in the mission ad gentes, tend to separate conversion to Christ from Baptism, regarding Baptism as unnecessary. It is true that in some places sociological considerations associated with Baptism obscure its genuine meaning as an act of faith. This is due to a variety of historical and cultural factors which must be removed where they still exist, so that the sacrament of spiritual rebirth can be seen for what it truly is. Local ecclesial communities must devote themselves to this task. It is also true that many profess an interior commitment to Christ and his message yet do not wish to be committed sacramentally, since, owing to prejudice or because of the failings of Christians, they find it difficult to grasp the true nature of the Church as a mystery of faith and love. (Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 6-9.) I wish to encourage such people to be fully open to Christ, and to remind them that, if they feel drawn to Christ, it was he himself who desired that the Church should be the "place" where they would in fact find him. At the same time, I invite the Christian faithful, both individually and as communities, to bear authentic witness to Christ through the new life they have received.

Certainly, every convert is a gift to the Church and represents a serious responsibility for her, not only because converts have to be prepared for Baptism through the catechumenate and then be guided by religious instruction, but also because - especially in the case of adults-such converts bring with them a kind of new energy, an enthusiasm for the faith, and a desire to see the Gospel lived out in the Church. They would be greatly disappointed if, having entered the ecclesial community, they were to find a life lacking fervor and without signs of renewal! We cannot preach conversion unless we ourselves are converted anew every day.

It bears repeating:

"Conversion is also joined to Baptism because of the intrinsic need to receive the fullness of new life in Christ."

Intrinsic to salvation is the "need to receive the fullness of new life in Christ", which is another way of saying the divine life of sanctifying grace, which is realized not only in the Sacrament of Baptism (which, as the ordinary means established by our Lord, is extrinsic to salvation), but also extra-sacramentally (under certain conditions) in the intrinsic virtues of supernatural faith and charity -- which effect the same end as Baptism, though they cannot of themselves make one a formal member of the Church (the visible institution of which is also extrinsic to salvation).

MRyan Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:57 am

tornpage wrote:
JPII, Redemptoris Missio

10. The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that "this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God."19

The footnote is to Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 22.

Quite so, but perhaps you can explain how you infer from "we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God", that "Rahner's 'anonymous Christian' has been adopted by the Magisterium"?

I simply do not see the actual magisterial connection, where you said:

tornpage wrote:I'd say Rahner's "anonymous Christian" has been adopted by the Magisterium:
JPII - General Audience, September 9, 1998

"Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Savior.”
JPII was quoting a Vatican congregation or something there.

Actually, JPII has people who have heard the gospel but not embraced it because of "cultural" obstacles being saved by the Holy Ghost. I believe that would be in Redemptio Missio.

That “salvation is offered to all” does not mean that the Church has embraced the universalism implied by Rahner. I believe you are reading too much into the words of Pope JPII who did not use “Normally” in the sense of another "normal" means of salvation, but in the sense that if and when it occurs, it will occur "Normally ... in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions ... by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ".

The words of Pope JPII must also be understood in light of the more authoritative Lumen Gentium 16 and Dominus Iesus, where the former says "But very [or "more"] often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:21, 25)", and where the latter teaches:

Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God.(87) One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments.(88) Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation.(89)

Nothing in Redmptoris Missio suggests that because “salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all”, or that because “The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit … many people” from having “an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church”, that this is some sort of magisterial “universalism” that suggests that many, most or all men are saved.

The magisterium has NEVER adopted this view, even if this view permeates the current culture, and even the Church. The Church, for "pastoral" reasons, chose to downplay all the "negatives" (such as Hell, anathemas, etc.), and in her zeal to accentuate the positive, she allowed a certain universalism to run free. As I said, however (perhaps I am a bit too optimistic), but I see a definite ecclesiastical claw-back beginning to emerge which may take more concrete magisterial form as the "Year of Faith" and the "New Evangelization" progress.

I will have more to say on this in another thread by expanding upon what I have already posted relative to the relevant articles such as Doctrinal Clarity for the New Evangelization: The Importance of Lumen Gentium 16 by Ralph Martin, and his recent book, Will Many Be Saved?: What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization.

columba Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:59 am

MRyan wrote?
Intrinsic to salvation is the "need to receive the fullness of new life in Christ", which is another way of saying the divine life of sanctifying grace, which is realized not only in the Sacrament of Baptism (which, as the ordinary means established by our Lord, is extrinsic to salvation), but also extra-sacramentally (under certain conditions) in the intrinsic virtues of supernatural faith and charity -- which effect the same end as Baptism, though they cannot of themselves make one a formal member of the Church (the visible institution of which is also extrinsic to salvation).

Mike, there's no other way to put this; you've completely lost the plot.
The undefined, loose terms you commonly use, i.e; "certain conditions" and "extra-sacramentally," can be as wide as one wants them to be in order to facilitate ones own scewed notion of the Church against the true definition of Church as laid out in numerous scripture passages, bulls, encyclicals and dogmatic definitions.

True, one can use those terms in an narrow way and indeed they do so initially, but because of the intrinsic error contained in the propsition, it's a simple matter of time before the expansion begins. From what once alluded to catechumens only, grows wider by the day until eventually we arrive where you (and all proponents of baptism of desire) are destined to arrive.. the complete abandoment of the necessity of membership of the Church for salvation.

Sure, in theory one can say that the dogma still holds good, but in practice -with the boundaries having been demolished- the dogma ceases to retain not only its original meaning but, no meaning at all. We are left with a new dogma that says, "outside the Church is salvation in abundance. (I know you will deny this but an honest reading of the above quoted extract from your last post, confirms what I have just said to be true).

tornpage Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:28 am

Mike,

Rahner:

Non-Christians could have "in [their] basic orientation and fundamental decision," Rahner wrote, "accepted the salvific grace of God, through Christ, although [they] may never have heard of the Christian revelation."[1]

JPII:

Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Savior.”

JPII (Redemptoris Missio, quoting VII)

This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that "this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God."

Even without “recogniz[ing] or acknowledg[ing] Christ," "apply[ing] not only to Christians": if you don’t see a similarity between that and Rahner’s position in the quote above, I don’t know what to say to that. It appears to be so radical a difference that further discussion will not be availing.

Nothing in Redmptoris Missio suggests that because “salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all”, or that because “The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit … many people” from having “an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church”, that this is some sort of magisterial “universalism” that suggests that many, most or all men are saved.

Why does this keep happening with you?

I never said anything about the number of those being saved. The issue is strictly whether the Magisterium has slipped into a Rahner-like approach to salvation which includes a basic orientation to goodness or “light” based upon one’s social or cultural experience or whatever, and “without knowing or acknowledging Christ.”

I say the Magisterium’s statements, reflected in VII and the statements of the head of the Church, the pope, indicates “yes.”

George Brenner Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:49 pm

Columba said: Sure, in theory one can say that the dogma still holds good, but in practice -with the boundaries having been demolished- the dogma ceases to retain not only its original meaning but, no meaning at all. We are left with a new dogma that says, "outside the Church is salvation in abundance. (I know you will deny this but an honest reading of the above quoted extract from your last post, confirms what I have just said to be true).

How true. This is reality and for anyone to believe that what you said here is not true is in denial or overly optimistic that the crisis of Faith will be resolved without recognition and ownership that we have been in a crisis and need to man(woman) up to fix it and be part of the cure. Just ask 100 people whether they be (C) catholics or non Catholics about obtaining Salvation and you will get answers all over the board. Plain and simple Vatican II and post Vatican II has been a time of lack of teaching the faith with orthodoxy and clarity. There is enough blame to go around and almost all MUST share, admit and fix it for the sake of doing God's will and the good of the spiritual health of Holy Mother Church.

MRyan said: As I said, however (perhaps I am a bit too optimistic), but I see a definite ecclesiastical claw-back beginning to emerge which may take more concrete magisterial form as the "Year of Faith" and the "New Evangelization" progress.

Mike, I pray with all my being that you are correct for you are without a doubt the eternal optimist. I am not encouraged in the early stages when a Bishop can say as part of the opening remarks of the year of faith that thank God that the misunderstanding concerning the Protestant Reformation has been resolved? Say what?

I think that listening more to the sermons and pleas of Father Michael Rodriquez would serve us all in being focused. Father could sure use our support and prayers! There is much work to be done and I am in a fighting mood. Clergy need to be orthodox or get out of the way.

Dear George,

May the good Lord grant you many, many graces through the intercession of Sancta Dei Genetrix. Thank you for your prayers, and thank you for your love for THE FAITH. Please try to encourage as many people as you know to write to the Apostolic Nuncio and request that the new bishop of El Paso be 100% orthodox, prepared to correct and discipline priests (and nuns!) who are not teaching the Faith, and supportive of the Traditional Latin Mass. The more people we can get to write to him and to Marc Cardinal Ouellet (Prefect for the Congregation of the Bishops), the better. Out of all the vacant sees in the United States, El Paso is now the one that has been vacant the longest.

Let us trust in Almighty God . . . He will never abandon His faithful sheep.

Ad Iesum per Mariam,

Fr. Michael Rodríguez
Santa Teresa de Jesús
Presidio, TX

JMJ,

George

columba Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:41 pm

On a side note:
Benedict XVI has recently voiced some concerns about Nostra Aetate (the document on religious liberty) and it appears that all is not well with that document and a few others.

However, if that be the case you'd think it would be ill advised to promote the study of the Vat II documents (presumably to enhance one's faith) as part of the celebrations of the 50th aniversary of the council.

For further info see below.
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/pope-on-nostra-aetates-weakness.html

George Brenner Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:51 pm

Thank you Columba. This is an excellent link. Our Pope had much to say to reflect on and maybe more importantly what was not said may give insight into what is being thought.

I can only return to the words intent and implementation one more time perhaps to the dismay of some. On this forum I believe that for me there has been only one person who posted very briefly who may have not been of good will. I said in one of my earliest posts that my main interest in joining the forum was to discuss and be part of this groups collective effort in being part of the cure for the tragic crisis of faith we find ourselves in as we race through OUR short time here on earth. We all scratch our heads as we pray, argue, fight, debate endorse , refute, agree , rebuke, modify, scold , attack, loose temper, employ sarcasm, walk away out of anger or frustration and whatever else anyone would like to add to our exchanges. We all really want to be good Catholics. The Popes of late for me have all been legitimate Popes BUT many of the good intentions and failures of Vatican II in reigning in the abuses became next to impossible to overcome. We have a new puppy at home but she must be trained with the tried and true formulas for compliance and obedience. I will not throw any rocks at the Pope because my God expects loyalty, prayer , support and help. Our Holy Fathers have suffered more than we will ever know. But for me all others do not get my automatic respect or blind obedience unless they demonstrate Church reverence and orthodoxy. This last statement breaks my heart but my silence in the face of abuse or errors would mean my approval which my soul will not allow.

JMJ,

George

MRyan Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:19 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

Rahner:

Non-Christians could have "in [their] basic orientation and fundamental decision," Rahner wrote, "accepted the salvific grace of God, through Christ, although [they] may never have heard of the Christian revelation."[1]
JPII:

Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Savior.”
JPII (Redemptoris Missio, quoting VII)

This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that "this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God."
Even without “recogniz[ing] or acknowledg[ing] Christ," "apply[ing] not only to Christians": if you don’t see a similarity between that and Rahner’s position in the quote above, I don’t know what to say to that. It appears to be so radical a difference that further discussion will not be availing.

And my response is “and”? This is like saying that what Rahner taught was consistent with what Pope Pius IX taught on invincible ignorance, which was in-turn consistent with VCII and its teaching that “the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God”.

What’s the “news” here? In this context, Rahner’s “anonymous Christian” doctrine (though the Church has never used that term - for good reason), is perfectly orthodox. Or is the “news” the fact that the Church teaches that an explicit faith in Christ may be fulfilled in a supernatural faith in God (a doctrine tossed about long before Rahner came along)? Again, what’s the “news”?

Are you simply pointing out the similarities in the respective doctrines? OK, great, except you also suggested that the conciliar popes “intended” the post-Council “abuses” in liturgy and doctrine; so forgive me if I place your comments into this all-encompassing paradigm.

tornpage wrote:
Nothing in Redmptoris Missio suggests that because “salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all”, or that because “The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit … many people” from having “an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church”, that this is some sort of magisterial “universalism” that suggests that many, most or all men are saved.
Why does this keep happening with you?

I never said anything about the number of those being saved. The issue is strictly whether the Magisterium has slipped into a Rahner-like approach to salvation which includes a basic orientation to goodness or “light” based upon one’s social or cultural experience or whatever, and “without knowing or acknowledging Christ.”

I say the Magisterium’s statements, reflected in VII and the statements of the head of the Church, the pope, indicates “yes.”

That’s true, you did not suggest this, but then again, this is the specific notion I took exception to, where, in a previous post on this thread, I cited Ralph Martin:

While neither Rahner, Balthasar, nor Sachs formally teach universalism the questions they raise about whether it is really possible for human freedom to finally reject God have contributed to an atmosphere of universalism. If I were to describe how many Catholics today think about the issue of the likelihood of those who are not explicitly Christians being saved, I would describe it like this:

“Wide is the gate and easy the way that leads to salvation and many there are who are entering by it. Narrow the gate and difficult the way that leads to hell and few there are who are taking that way.”

The difficulty with this prevailing mentality is that it is the exact opposite of what Jesus teaches about our situation.

And that is what I thought you were challenging with your statement “the Magisterium has slipped into a Rahner-like approach to salvation” which includes not only “the universality of salvation”, but strongly implies universalism, or universal salvation, which Rahner admits he “hopes” for, even while acknowledging that it was condemned at the Provincial Council of Constantiople in 543. (See http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27664978?uid=3739600&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101304688871)

"Why does this keep happening with you?" -- indeed.

tornpage Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:57 pm

This is like saying that what Rahner taught was consistent with what Pope Pius IX taught on invincible ignorance

That is far from clear, and very debatable.

Sponsored content