Question For You Catholics

[j_calvin]

If Pope Pius X says there is no salvation outside the church and Pope John Paul II and the Cathechism says that Muslims believe in the same God, I don't get it. Maybe I'm just ignorant can someone explain that to me?

I have read that St. Frances Xavier believed that the mass should be in the Latin rite but the Second Vatican Council says it should be in the vernacular. Doesn't this just confuse issues when one says one thing and another says another?

Just a couple of questions...

Peace,

Rick

[Aloysius]

Extra Ecclesium Nulla Sallus- Dogma of the Church, outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

Explicit and implicit membership in the Church- doctrine which was known by the faithful and discussed by such people as St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Pius XII in regards to baptism of desire and invincible ignorance

Vatican II has expanded upon the understanding of both that Dogma and the doctrines regarding invincible ignorance, and we can safely say

Extra Ecclesium (Expliticatus et Impliticatus) Nulla Sallus
Outside of the Catholic Church (Explicit and Implicit) There is no salvation

John Paul II and Vatican II have expanded upon this notion, saying that because Muslims profess that there is one God who is the same God as the Jews and Christians, Muslims who do not knowingly reject the Catholic Faith but rather are raised into a Muslim Family and believe that following Islam is the way to do God's will have an implicit membership in the Church. When they die, through the infinite mercy of God, they may be saved by God through Jesus by the merits, prayers, and hopes of His Church for them. They will certainly need to be perfected in Purgatory to be prepared to know the full truth about who God is, because they were unable to know Him while on earth.

Mass in Latin Only was a discipline of the Latin Rite that was loosened because it was apparent the majority of the world no longer held the Latin Language in high regard. the Latin Mass is the norm, but an allowance for the vernacular so that the people can understand it was made through the Second Vatican Council.

[j_calvin]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 29 2004, 06:04 PM'] Extra Ecclesium Nulla Sallus- Dogma of the Church, outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

Explicit and implicit membership in the Church- doctrine which was known by the faithful and discussed by such people as St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Pius XII in regards to baptism of desire and invincible ignorance

Vatican II has expanded upon the understanding of both that Dogma and the doctrines regarding invincible ignorance, and we can safely say

Extra Ecclesium (Expliticatus et Impliticatus) Nulla Sallus
Outside of the Catholic Church (Explicit and Implicit) There is no salvation

John Paul II and Vatican II have expanded upon this notion, saying that because Muslims profess that there is one God who is the same God as the Jews and Christians, Muslims who do not knowingly reject the Catholic Faith but rather are raised into a Muslim Family and believe that following Islam is the way to do God's will have an implicit membership in the Church. When they die, through the infinite mercy of God, they may be saved by God through Jesus by the merits, prayers, and hopes of His Church for them. They will certainly need to be perfected in Purgatory to be prepared to know the full truth about who God is, because they were unable to know Him while on earth.

Mass in Latin Only was a discipline of the Latin Rite that was loosened because it was apparent the majority of the world no longer held the Latin Language in high regard. the Latin Mass is the norm, but an allowance for the vernacular so that the people can understand it was made through the Second Vatican Council. [/quote]
Doesn't it get confusing though when one saint and another pope disagree but this is magisterium doctrine. Thanks for the response.

[Aloysius]

well, not really. It's really quite simple, people debate and debate about different things throughout the ages, the Magisterium has the final say. Besides, Latin is a discipline pertaining to the way we celebrate Catholic Truth, it is not Catholic Truth in itself. It's how that truth is presented to the people. It can be likened to a book. disciplines are just the cover page, maybe some gold trim around the edges of the pages. The Magisterium decided to take the gold trim away and make it silver trim. or decided to change the picture on the front cover. The inside contents are still the same Truth, it's just presented a different way to make it more understandable to a changing people.

[cappie]

The Catholic position on Islam is clear and ancient. Mohammed was not a prophet of God in the sense that Moses or Jeremiah or Isaiah were, and the Qu'ran is no more revealed scripture than the Book of Mormon. There is no getting away from these facts of Catholic theology. The present crisis in Islam (not entirely their fault) does not give Catholics any leeway in this matter simply because 'our Muslim cousins are suffering', so that we must be nice to them and pretend that Islam is a valid Revelation. It is not.

This does not give us license to kill them or exrterminate them from the earth, hopefully we have come to realise that we have to respect all peoples as created in the image and likeness of God and all sharing in the truth in different ways but not in the same ways. Christians believe that the fullness of Revelation is found in the Christian Faith. That should not be a cause of arrogance but a source of humility and respect for others.

We are Monotheists along with Jews and Moslems so we do believe in one God but the Doctrine of the Trinity as believed and taught by the Christian Church is a point of difference. The Muslims believe Jesus is a Prophet we believe he is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, true God and true man

There are many people today who would agree with Francis Xavier. The language of the Mass and the other prayers of the Church is a matter of history not of Dogma.

[j_calvin]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 29 2004, 06:18 PM'] well, not really. It's really quite simple, people debate and debate about different things throughout the ages, the Magisterium has the final say. Besides, Latin is a discipline pertaining to the way we celebrate Catholic Truth, it is not Catholic Truth in itself. It's how that truth is presented to the people. It can be likened to a book. disciplines are just the cover page, maybe some gold trim around the edges of the pages. The Magisterium decided to take the gold trim away and make it silver trim. or decided to change the picture on the front cover. The inside contents are still the same Truth, it's just presented a different way to make it more understandable to a changing people. [/quote]
I would concur on this statement. I have no problem with this. I do have an issue with Islam and the Islamic militants killing for no just cause all for the holy jihad.

[j_calvin]

[quote name='cappie' date='Jun 29 2004, 06:19 PM'] The Catholic position on Islam is clear and ancient. Mohammed was not a prophet of God in the sense that Moses or Jeremiah or Isaiah were, and the Qu'ran is no more revealed scripture than the Book of Mormon. There is no getting away from these facts of Catholic theology. The present crisis in Islam (not entirely their fault) does not give Catholics any leeway in this matter simply because 'our Muslim cousins are suffering', so that we must be nice to them and pretend that Islam is a valid Revelation. It is not.

This does not give us license to kill them or exrterminate them from the earth, hopefully we have come to realise that we have to respect all peoples as created in the image and likeness of God and all sharing in the truth in different ways but not in the same ways. Christians believe that the fullness of Revelation is found in the Christian Faith. That should not be a cause of arrogance but a source of humility and respect for others.

We are Monotheists along with Jews and Moslems so we do believe in one God but the Doctrine of the Trinity as believed and taught by the Christian Church is a point of difference. The Muslims believe Jesus is a Prophet we believe he is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, true God and true man

There are many people today who would agree with Francis Xavier. The language of the Mass and the other prayers of the Church is a matter of history not of Dogma. [/quote]
Ah but how would you evangelize the militant jihad or can you? Would you say that they are predestined for hell for their beliefs?

[cappie]

I don't know whether you can evangelise any militant. It's like calling the Provisional IRA a good Catholic organisation.

[Crusader_4]

J_Calvin as mentioned before debate and discussion has a glorious history within the Catholic Church. For example, St. Thomas of Aquinas didnt believe in the Immaculate Conception and St. Augustine and St. Jerome had different ideas for the biblical canoncial. So debating and discerning is part of the way to coming to the full relazaiton of Church however paraphrasin what the great Augustine said "Rome has spoken, Case Closed" and in Latin it is "Roma locuta est, causa finita est"

[amarkich]

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

"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.)

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that [i]they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless [b]before death[/b] they are joined with Her[/i]; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, [b]even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ[/b], can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) (emphasis added)


I just typed a long response, but there was a computer error, and it was deleted. Those quotes are what the Catholic Church teaches. There is no qualification on them. The Church has never taught that nonCatholics can be saved. This is a modern(ist) belief. I wish I could get my old post back. I will continue to post on this subject. Read above for Church teaching.

[j_calvin]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Jun 29 2004, 06:31 PM'] "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

"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.)

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that [i]they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless [b]before death[/b] they are joined with Her[/i]; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, [b]even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ[/b], can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) (emphasis added)


I just typed a long response, but there was a computer error, and it was deleted. Those quotes are what the Catholic Church teaches. There is no qualification on them. The Church has never taught that nonCatholics can be saved. This is a modern(ist) belief. I wish I could get my old post back. I will continue to post on this subject. Read above for Church teaching. [/quote]
But I read above that the Muslims can be saved because they believe in God and must go through purgation. Sorry missing the meaning of this post.

[j_calvin]

[quote name='cappie' date='Jun 29 2004, 06:28 PM'] I don't know whether you can evangelise any militant. It's like calling the Provisional IRA a good Catholic organisation. [/quote]
Nah, couldn't see me going over there and telling them they need to adhere to the biblical truth what they are doing is wrong...

[Dave]

It is a lie that the Church says that non-Catholics may never be saved, no way, no how. It's not a modernist teaching that non-Catholics can be saved. And another thing, amarkich: if you believe that ONLY Catholics can go to heaven, you commit HERESY and are barred from the sacraments. The idea that only Catholics can go to heaven has been condemned by the Church. Please read carefully and thoroughly this excerpt of an article on salvation outside the church from [url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com"]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com[/url] :

1) The most important Feeneyite assumption is that those being mentioned as being excluded from salvation includes those who have never heard the message of salvation as proclaimed by Christ’s Church. There is thus no way out, unless one physically becomes a member of Christ’s Church. The question of whether people are culpable is irrelevant, because the decrees leave no room for any ifs, ands or buts. That is the main assumption behind the Feeneyite line. Thus, we would expect in the decrees, such statements to be made. They will quote Romans 1 which says they have no excuse. Of course, they ignore Romans 2:14-15, which shows that those who obey what is written on their heart, would achieve salvation. We would thus expect, in the three de fide decrees, statements from the Popes, that there would be a de fide definition declaring that those who love Christ, but die before having the chance to be baptized, are condemned to hell. We would also expect, that the Popes and Councils would be explicit, or at least implicitly mention, in these very decrees, that those who never heard the message would also be condemned, and would fall within the mention of those who can not achieve salvation. However, when we examine these decrees, we will see that neither of these assumptions are true.


2) The next assumption is that most Church Fathers were wrong on the issue. In my piece, I gave lots of quotes from Church Fathers and Popes who though they declared almost to a man, their belief in ‘No Salvation Outside the Church (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, hereafter termed EENS), also left room for those who by by desire for baptism could still attain salvation. Even those most often quoted by Feeneyites in support of their position, would often at least grant exceptions for those who died if they died a baptism of blood before being baptized. The earliest Christian apologists, such as Justin Martyr and St. Ireneaus, who also declared EENS, also declared that if people responded to whatever grace that God had given them, if even not baptized members of the Catholic Church, could be saved. The Feeneyites will often quote a Pope who showed that Church Fathers can err, and in fact quote a Pope who argued that St. Augustine erred on an issue, and he did not have authority over the Pope. Yes, it is true that the Church Fathers have erred on issues and are not infallible; nevertheless, with such an array of Church Fathers speaking out against the Feeneyite position, it is strange that there is never any mention of any of the Fathers who favored the broader view of salvation, as being wrong on the issue. If St. Augustine was so wrong on what later would be a de fide definition, why did not the Pope say he was wrong on this issue? After all, St. Augustine, also did argue that those who loved Christ, and died before receiving baptism (all the while still confirming the necessity of baptism) could still be saved. Why such a silence from the Councils and Popes if all these Church Fathers were wrong on such an important issue?


3) Another assumption is that since these de fide definitions, Popes and Councils have not done their job for 700 years in condemning heresy among Saints!!! The great doctor of the Church, for example is St. Thomas Aquinas. As pointed out in my prior essay, he affirmed unhesitatingly at the same time that he affirmed the necessity of baptism, that those who desired baptism, but died before they could get baptized, would achieve salvation. If his writing on such a pivotal issue did not square up with the first de fide definition, then Popes have tolerated heresy among its ranks for 700 years. Is that likely? His writings have been promulgated with great gusto in the magisterium, and yet there is no record of his condemnation!!! How could St. Thomas be canonized if he taught such a deceiving heresy? The Catholic Church does not canonize heretics. At the least the Pope would have said “You know, he got most things right, but he made a heretical statement on salvation. But despite that, he was Ok, so we canonize him because of his other writings. ” However, not one mention of him being wrong on this issue. You would figure that among the anathemas sits written in the past centuries, at least one of them would have been on those who held to that one could achieve salvation without water baptism, or on other Saints (such as St. Frances De Sales) who argued that one who did not hear the message of the gospel could achieve salvation through Christ, though he was invincibly ignorant. The Father Feeney assumption is that the magisterium, right after the decrees of the Council of Trent, promulgated an errant Catechism (that said one would achieve salvation with a desire for baptism as mentioned in my prior piece). The magisterium has promulgated three Catechisms that teach heresy (Council of Trent, Pius X, and the recent Catechisms). Thus, the Feeneyite assumption is that the Popes and Councils have promulgated heretical teachings of Saints who taught after the de fide definition of EENS. That is unlikely to say the least.


4) We have an assumption that the pope who promulgated the first de fide definition, just a few years earlier, wrote heresy, as we will see later. I have been called a heretic by several Feeneyites. If so, I join the ranks of Popes who taught likewise. According to them, the Popes have been in heresy for almost 140 years or so. From the writings of Pope Pius IX, St. Pope Pius X, Pope Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II, etc. all have taught heresy, because they taught that those who are invincibly ignorant, have the possibility of achieving salvation. None of the Popes mentioned downplayed the importance of people joining the Catholic Church. Here one has access to the salvific sacraments. They have left room for the possibility of salvation for those who though not directly joining the Roman Catholic Church, still could be linked to the Church, if they truly desire, and respond to whatever grace God has given them. We supposedly thus have heresy in the ranks of the popes. Not once or twice, but repeatedly. Of course, that does a hatchet job of Matthew 16:18 (which says the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church) Now, to the texts themselves:



Pope Innocent III
Lateran Council IV (AD 1215)

[The 12th Ecumenical Council of the Church]


One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours… But the sacrament of baptism (which at the invocation of God and the indivisible Trinity, namely, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, is solemnized in water) rightly conferred by anyone in the form of the Church is useful unto salvation for little ones and for adults.


The first part of this decree is about what Catholics believe. In this first decree there is absolutely no mention of those who have never heard the message of the gospel. The fact that non-Catholics who have never heard the gospel are condemned is important and foundational to the Feeneyite view!!! Thus, what we see is that those who hold to the rigorist view, as adding their own words to what Pope Innocent III wrote. He does not say, for those who have never heard the message, they can not be saved. The actual presumption in his writing is that the people who are reading this know who the Pope is, and that he is the head of Christendom. Those who are outside of the Catholic Church of their own volition are no doubt condemned. That is consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches today.


In this decree we also see the mention of baptism and the Eucharist. It is in fact a de fide definition that one does not need to eat the Eucharist for salvation (baptized babies who die before the age of reasons achieve salvation even if they do not partake of the Eucharist).
In relation to baptism only seven years prior to this decree, this same Pope Innocent III wrote in 1208 AD:


“A certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water, while saying I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.. We respond that since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as clearly gathered from the words of the Lord when said "Go baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit." The Jew must be baptized again by another. If however such a one had died immediately he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament although not because of the sacrament of faith. Denzinger section 413.”


We see that the Pope shows that one who is so desperate for baptism he tries to baptize himself, but is unable to have someone baptize him before he dies, would rush to his heavenly home before he is baptized!!! For a Feeneyite, It is amazing that a Pope who only seven years later affirms the first de fide decree, also saw that the desire for baptism would achieve salvation. However, it is not amazing, because the definition by no means intended to exclude those like he mentioned only seven years prior. And of course, the first de fide definition did not mention that Pope Innocent III was wrong only seven years earlier. If the Feeneyite position was true, the Pope, and the Council would have had an obligation to say that the Pope’s prior statement was wrong. The one who did not get actually baptized (though he desired it) should have been declared to have been in hell. Of course this decree makes no such declaration, because the one with that type of desire would be saved, even if not water baptized.



De Fide Definition # 2
Unam Sanctam
Papal Bull of Pope Boniface VIII, 1302

We are compelled, our faith urging us, to believe and to hold—and we do firmly believe and simply confess—that there is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins; her Spouse proclaiming it in the canticles, "My dove, my undefiled is but one, she is the choice one of her that bore her"; which represents one mystical body, of which body the head is Christ, but of Christ, God.


If, then, the Greeks or others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they necessarily confess that they are not of the sheep of Christ; for the Lord says, in John, that there is one fold, one shepherd, and one only. This authority, moreover, even though it is given to man and exercised through man, is not human but rather divine, being given by divine lips to Peter and founded on a rock for him and his successors through Christ Himself whom He has confessed; the Lord Himself saying to Peter: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind," etc. Whoever, therefore, resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordination of God, unless he makes believe, like the Manichean, that there are two beginnings. This we consider false and heretical, since by the testimony of Moses, not "in the beginnings," but "in the beginning" God created the heavens and the earth.


Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.


We notice that this is after St. Thomas’ writings and would have been the perfect Council to correct him. Of course they did not correct him, because this decree was not inconsistent with what he taught.


Notice that in this writing, that Pope Boniface mentions the Greeks, ( a mention of what we now know as the Greek Orthodox Church.) He writes that they specifically rejected papal authority, when they said “If, then, the Greeks or others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they necessarily confess that they are not of the sheep of Christ; for the Lord says, in John, that there is one fold, one shepherd, and one only.” It says the Greeks and others, specifically refused to submit to papal authority. Thus, very much implied, is that they have heard the message of the gospel, and rejected the fact that Peter and his successors had authority over all of the Church. The Greeks (and others, are put in the same category of those who knowingly rejected the Pope’s authority) thus knowingly rejected this authority. They refuse to be one in the one sheepfold intended. Thus there is no excuse for this. Therefore, for these people who have heard the message and rejected the Pope’s authority, the only way that they can be saved is by accepting this papal authority. Thus, in keeping with this, when they have heard the message, the only way that they can be saved is by coming into the Church that Christ established and submit to this papal authority. That is the background for the de fide definition. That is in tune with the Pope John Paul’s teaching that when one has heard the message of the gospel and the authority of the Pope over the Church, one must be submissive to this authority to achieve salvation.


There is no mention in this decree of those who have not heard the message of papal authority. Pope Boniface does not say, “if they have not heard the message of the gospel and papal authority one can not be saved.”


Another question is “how could one submit to the Pope to achieve salvation?” It is indeed possible that one can be submissive to God (and his vicar, the Pope) without knowing of the necessity of this submission. An analogy may show this point. For example, during the Colonial times, Great Britain owned vast amounts of empires in Asia and Africa. All the people who lived in those areas were indeed truly under the authority of Great Britain; however, if one went into the bushes of Asia or Africa, there were probably people who did not know about the authority of Great Britain, and did not know that they had to submit to it. In a sense, they were submissive to Great Britain without knowing of the need to. If once they learned of the necessity of being submissive to the colonial rule of Great Britain, they would then become submissive when they knew they had to. However, if they learned of this authority and rejected this authority, they cut themselves off. In the same way, the Pope truly has authority over all the earth; nevertheless, there are some who do not know or have seriously studied that indeed he has this authority. However, they submit to whatever grace that Christ has given them, and they can achieve salvation; nevertheless, if they have truly heard the message of the full gospel (which includes papal authority), and they refuse to submit to this authority (like the Greeks or other) in Pope Boniface’s decree, the people very well cut themselves off from salvation, just as mentioned by Pope Boniface. No one who has truly heard this message and knowingly rejects this truth for whatever reason, can be saved.



De Fide Decree # 3
Pope Eugene IV, the Bull
Cantate Domino, 1441

Besides it anathematizes the madness of the Manichaeans, who have established two first principles, one of the visible, and another of the invisible; and they have said that there is one God of the New Testament, another God of the Old Testament.


It, moreover, anathematizes, execrates, and condemns every heresy that suggests contrary things. And first it condemns Ebion, Cerinthus, Marcion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus, and all similar blasphemers, who, being unable to accept the personal union of humanity with the Word, denied that our Lord Jesus Christ was true God, proclaiming Him pure man who was called divine man by reason of a greater participation in divine grace, which He had received by merit of a more holy life. It anathematizes also Manichaeus with his followers, who, thinking vainly that the Son of God had assumed not a true but an ephemeral body, entirely do away with the truth of the humanity in Christ. And also Valentinus who asserts that the Son of God took nothing from the Virgin Mary, but assumed a heavenly body and passed through the womb of the Virgin just as water flows and runs through an aqueduct. Arius also, who asserted that the body assumed from the Virgin lacked a soul, and would have the Godhead in place of the soul. Also Apollinaris, who, understanding that there was no true humanity if in Christ the soul is denied as giving the body form, posited only a sensitive soul, but held that the Godhead of the Word took the place of a rational soul. It also anathematizes Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius who assert that humanity was united with the Son of God through grace, and hence there are two persons in Christ, just as they confess that there are two natures, since they were unable to understand that the union of humanity with the Word was hypostatic, and so refused to accept the subsistence of God. For according to this blasphemy, the Word was not made flesh, but the Word through grace lived in the flesh; that is, He was made not the Son of God, but rather the Son of God lived in man. It anathematizes also, execrates, and condemns Eutyches the archimandrite; since he believed according to the blasphemy of Nestorius that the truth of the Incarnation is excluded, and therefore it is fitting that humanity was so united to the Word of God that the person of the Godhead and of humanity were one and the same and also, he could not grasp the unity of person as long as a plurality of natures existed, just as he established that there was one person of the Godhead and humanity in Christ, so he asserted that there was one nature, meaning that before the union there was a duality of natures, but in the assumption they passed over into one nature, with the greatest blasphemy and impiety granting either that humanity was turned into Godhead, or Godhead into humanity. It also anathematizes, execrates, and condemns Macarius of Antioch and all who hold similar views; although he had a correct understanding of the duality of natures and the unity of person, yet he erred greatly concerning the operations of Christ when he said that in Christ there was one operation and one will on the part of both natures. All these, together with their heresies, the Holy Roman Church anathematizes, affirming that there are two wills and two operations in Christ.


The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. 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.


We notice, that in the background, the mention of various heresies that have knowingly denied various truths of the Catholic Faith. All of these heresies mentioned had contact with the full gospel and many (such as the Arians, Manichaeans, and Monophystes) were anathematized. All these sects have heard the message, but refused to enter the Church despite that fact. Also, notice at the end, it says, that those who shed their blood for Christ, will not be saved, unless they did it within the bosom of the Catholic Church. This again reiterates that they have heard the gospel of Christ. They indeed can not be saved even if martyred because prior to this they had rejected the gospel.


In the same breath of the message of those who have rejected the true gospel, the Pope makes the statement about the pagans, Jews, etc.. This takes as a starting assumption that they have (like the Arians, Monophystes, Ebionites) heard the message of Christ's gospel. It is not talking about those who have not mentioned the gospel. The ones that these decrees are mentioning are those that have heard the message. If they had heard the message and obstinately stay outside the Church, they can not be saved. Notice that in this decree, just like the first two mentioned, the decree does not say, "Well, if those pagans and Jews, etc. have never heard of the gospel, they can not be saved." In order for the strict EENS view to be correct, it needs to say that. It did not. After hearing the full gospel, they have rejected it, so anybody who stays a pagan, Jew, etc. are indeed condemned to hell (just like the Ebionites, Arians, etc.) They are thus condemned unless they physically become members of the Church. This is fully consistent with what the Church teaches now.

Conclusion

The assumptions behind the rigorist, EENS are false. 1) In these decrees there was no mention of those who have not heard the message. 2) The Popes have not canonized heretical Saints. 3) The Popes have not tolerated heresy for 700 years on the matter with zero critique of any of those who taught baptism of desire. 4) The Popes for the last 150 years are not heretics. Instead, the message of the three dogmatic decrees by no means meant to go into detail all aspects of salvation. These decrees as we have seen, are limited in scope. Recently, there has been legitimate development of doctrine that is in no way contradictory to what was stated in these decrees.


The magisterium's position (as stated in CCC 846-847) has thus not departed from the truths of the first three decrees. Thus, only recently have we have seen a focus on those who have not heard the message of the full gospel, and have not had the chance to knowingly submit to the authority of the Catholic Church. Those who have not heard the full gospel as found in the Holy Catholic Church, have a possibility of salvation. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church is where the sacraments that Christ established on earth are given. Those who are in the actual mystical body of Christ (that is the Catholic Church) can achieve salvation easier than others (though even we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling). One can achieve salvation, but without these grace filling sacraments it is much harder for non-Catholics to do so. That is why Catholics must still evangelize non-Catholics to come into the Church that Christ established.

[j_calvin]

Dave,

That was an excellent response.

[Dave]

Thanks, but I don't deserve the credit. The credit belongs to the guy who did that article. I just happened to provide the article.