Question For You Catholics

[Chrysologus]

Hananiah's requirement that non-Catholics must formally repudiate their religion is a very restricted view of the "baptism of desire." Although he or she likes to label more "liberal" opinions "modernist" (a terrible misnomer, I would say), the Church's actual teaching can be found here:

"[T]hey could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it....Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of conscience--those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Vatican II, [i]Lumen gentium[/i]).

There are no doubt many Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and people of all other religions who:

Do not know the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ
Do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church
Seek God with a sincere heart
Are moved by grace
Try in their action to do God's will as they know it through the dictates of conscience

These people may be saved, even though they are not Catholic. God offers absolutely everyone salvation through faith in Christ (even if we don't know his name or realize that it is him), which we are all free to accept or reject with our free will. Obviously those who have been explicitely preached the gospel and joined the Catholic Church have a much easier time saying yes to God because they have the true faith and the grace of the sacraments.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 30 2004, 09:33 AM'][. . .]

It is absolutely necessary that you be a member of Christ's Church in order to obtain salvation. But if the only way that one can become a member of the Catholic Church is via baptism (be it water, blood, or desire) doesn't that lead one to a heretical conclusion?

I was under the impression that it is heretical and would make a person anathema to say that God is "bound by the Sacraments." If the only way for God to allow someone into the Catholic Church is via Baptism, doesn't that cause Him to be "bound by the Sacraments?"

I know that my logic is wrong, and that the Church has answered my question somewhere, but I was simply hoping you would know. Thanks a ton!

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff[/quote]
The answer to your question can be found by looking at the paragraphs in the section of the [u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u] on the necessity of baptism for salvation. The first paragraph in that section affirms the indispensible nature of baptism and says: "The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are 'reborn of water and the Spirit.' [b][i]God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he Himself is not bound by His sacraments[/i][/b]." [[u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u], no. 1257] The Catechism then moves on to discuss the nature of Baptism of Blood, and Baptism of Desire, and says: "The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. [b][i]This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament[/i][/b]." [[u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u], no. 1258] Thus, neither Baptism of Blood, nor Baptism of Desire, are, properly speaking, [i]sacraments[/i]; instead, it is correct to say that they are analogous to the Sacrament of Baptism in that they bring about the fruits of baptism even without the proper prayer ([i]form[/i]) and in the absence of the sacramental washing with water ([i]matter[/i]). Consequently, it follows that the Church herself is bound to the sacraments as the [i]ordinary[/i] means for conveying God's grace, and that only through them does she have the assurance that the graces signified are truly imparted to man; but God, who is supremely free, has the ability to bestow His grace upon man in an [i]extraordinary[/i] manner even outside the sacramental economy.

Edited June 30, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Guest JeffCR07]

Thanks everyone, that helps and its all very clear!
Dont you just love the Church?

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jun 30 2004, 11:59 AM']What I consider the modernist position is the position which holds that baptized Christians (Protestants, Eastern Orthodox) remain members of the Catholic Church after they reach the age of reason and reject her . . .[/quote]
A man is only culpable for rejecting the necessity of the Church for salvation if his knows this truth and then deliberately fails to either enter the Church, of if already in her, to remain united to her.

In my own case, I was a material heretic on the issue of the necessity of membership in the Church until the age of twenty-six, but once I came to understand that being a member of the Church was necessary for salvation, had I chosen to remain outside the Catholic Church at that point, then I would have become a formal heretic, because I would have been culpable for my error and would have fallen into obstinate heresy.

Simply reaching the age of reason does not mean that one has willfully rejected the Catholic Church, because there can be many situations that prevent a person from either finding the truth in the first place, or from comprehending the truth once discovered. God alone can know who is or is not invincibly ignorant, for He alone sees the secrets of the heart.

Moreover, just as a mortal sin requires full knowledge and deliberate consent on the part of the man who is acting; so too, in the grave matter of rejecting the necessity of the Church, for a man to be culpable it is required that he possess the requisite knowledge and act deliberately, because only then is his rejection of the Church truly a form of obstinate heresy. [cf., [u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u], "Erroneous Judgment," nos. 1790-1794]

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Chrysologus' date='Jun 30 2004, 12:31 PM'] "[T]hey could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it....Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of conscience--those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Vatican II, [i]Lumen gentium[/i]). [/quote]
Notice that it does not say that such persons will be saved, but that they may be saved. The next logical question to ask is [i]how[/i]. This is where you have to look beyond the 1994 Catechism and the documents of Vatican II. Try the Council of Florence and [i]Unam Sanctam[/i].

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 30 2004, 01:12 PM'] A man is only culpable for rejecting the necessity of the Church for salvation if his knows this truth and then deliberately fails to either enter the Church, of if already in her, to remain united to her. [/quote]
I agree. I'm going to have to quote myself here.

[quote]Due to invincible ignorance, Protestant children who reach the age of reason will not be guilty of this sin of heresy/schism, however since as stated above the Catholic Church is a necessary means of salvation it will simply be morally impossible for them to remain in a state of grace throughout their adult life.[/quote]

Rejecting the Catholic Church ipso facto excludes one from her membership. This is the sin of schism. Invincible ignorance renders one free from the guilt of this sin, but it does not prevent the schism from happening. The person is still outside of the Catholic Church, and since the Catholic Church is a necessary means of salvation, such a person will, ignorance aside, be unable to persevere in a state of sanctifying grace until the point of death. Invincible ignorance does not save. By making one not guilty of the sin of heresy or schism, what invincible ignorane does do is make God more willing to grant those who possess it the grace of conversion, and it lessens their pains in hell should they never convert.

[quote]In my own case, I was a material heretic on the issue of the necessity of membership in the Church until the age of twenty-six, but once I came to understand that being a member of the Church was necessary for salvation, had I chosen to remain outside the Catholic Church at that point, then I would have become a formal heretic, because I would have been culpable for my error and would have fallen into obstinate heresy.[/quote]
No arguments here. I was also a material heretic for a good portion of my life. My ignorance was probably why God was willing to give me such great gifts of grace as were required to rescue me from the sins for which I was guilty.

[Guest JeffCR07]

But remember Hananiah, that God, as you stated "doesn't need the ceremony and the water, but He can do it another way if He so desires." Thus, it is within the realm of possibility that God can baptise in a manner of which we are not aware now, nor were we aware during earlier periods of the Church's history.

I would like to point out that the Magisterium cannot contradict itself. If, in accordance with [i]Lumen gentium[/i], those people who are in question may be saved, then that means the possibility (not the certainty) must exist. If anyone interprets an older council to make impossible that possibility, and that includes Florence and [i]Unam Sanctum[/i] then that interpretation is in grave error, for it would constitute a de facto contradiction of Magisterial teaching, which cannot exist.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[amarkich]

There has been much debate since I last posted, and I would like to clarify a few things although I certainly cannot address every issue nor can I address most of the issues which have been presented to this point. First, Chrysologus (and Dave, I suppose), I am in no way "brainwashed" by the "Traditionalists" (I am a Traditionalist, a real one, not a Sedevacantist). I would certainly consider myself a Modernist until a year and a half ago (at least on most issues), but once I started actually reading Church documents from before 1965 (what a thought!), I recognized that the false ideas about what is necessary for Heaven which have be intimated by many notable figures in the Church in recent years and even spoken directly are, beyond any doubt, heretical and condemned by the Church. After reading through your article (Dave), I noticed a few problems, most of which pertain to the concept of imposing speculative theology onto Church teaching. The article supposes that the unchanging teaching of the Church somehow can change and can be altered to mean something other than what it was declared to mean(this proposition has been condemned several times). The Council clearly states that those who are outside the visible Church ("not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics") "will go into the [i]eternal fire [/i]which was prepared for the [i]devil and his angels[/i], unless [b]before death [/b]they are [b]joined with Her[/b]". If anyone says that this somehow means only those who "know they are outside the Church" or that it is unnecessary to be joined to the Church, that person commits a heresy, otherwise it would mean that the teaching of the Church had changed which is impossible. Further, the Council of Trent (which I meant to quote earlier) is the one killer for the believe who "confess three Baptisms for the remission of sins." Here is the decree:

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

How is "Baptism" of blood or desire not twisting the words our Our Lord into a metaphor? "Unless a man be born again of [b]water[/b] and the Holy Ghost" (not blood or desire and the Holy Ghost, but water) he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. In response to Dave, I think it would be good for the author of that article to read the Canons on Baptism and then think again about the proposition of multiple Baptisms. Further, the Council also decreed this:

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

The easiest way that most Modernists will get around this Canon is simply by saying that the individual has already received Baptism (by blood or desire), so their claim is that Baptism is still necessary but that there are many 'baptisms'. If this is taken in context, it is a theological stretch at best to reconcile Canon V and multiple Baptisms because these decrees from Trent are speaking of the Sacraments, sacramental Baptism (not "spiritual" baptism that is claimed by blood and desire). Further, if the so-called baptisms by means other than water and the Holy Ghost can attain the same efficacy that Baptism by water can attain, why does the Church not baptize all adults conditionally? If the desire for Baptism is equal to Baptism itself, then every Baptism of an adult should be conditional because the individual has already received Baptism and so this second Baptism of water would be unnecessary and would serve simply as a conditional Baptism in case the desire baptism had not actually been attained. This is not the case, though. The Church does not conditionally baptize adults who already have received Baptism of Desire. What is the reason for this action by the Church? Because I cannot address all the issues, I will stand in support of Hananiah's defenses and claims, only furthering them another step. Since God is bound by His words ("unless a man be born again he cannot enter the Kingdom of God"), He is bound by all of His words, including "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." c.f., St. John iii.5. God bless.


Deus in adiutorium meum intende.

Veniat illi laqueus quem ignorat, et captio quam abscondit, conprehendat eum: et in laqueo cadat in ipso.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Part of me wants Dust to get rid of this thread, because if those who are not formed by their faith read this argument, they may be shaken. However, I cannot allow such a grossly unorthodox stab at the Church and at Rome go undefended.

Amarkich, your argument is filled with fallacy. First, you erroneously say that Dave is establishing a change of Church Doctrine. He is not, you are interpreting him - and the Church - falsly.

Moreover, it seems striking that the only "authority" you have on declaring Trent to be in disaccord with [i]Lumen gentum[/i] is your own intellect. Against the teaching of not only the Pope - who you believe to be the successor of Peter - and not only the Magisterium, but [i]both together[/i] you seem to profess that you have greater knowledge on the subject of God's Truth.

To address, however, your singular point of how to reconcile the two cannons, I pray that I can put your mind to rest, for it is heretical to deny the Catechism and the teachings of the Magisterium.

[quote]1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism [b]without being a sacrament[/b][/quote]

Trent and the issue being discussed here are speaking of two different things. Trent speaks of the Sacrament of Baptism. True and Natural water is absolutely necessary. One cannot give the Sacrament of Baptism without water. However, baptism does not exist exclusively sacramentally. As such, one can be Baptised by blood or by desire, and enter the Church, though it is not the Sacrament of Baptism.

The only other argument you make is the notion of being joined with the church "before their death" and I certainly pray that you do not profess yourself to know, as only God knows, the hearts of men and the workings of the Father. The Church does not teach on "when" a person is baptised by desire, and I pray you do not either

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jun 30 2004, 03:13 PM']
Rejecting the Catholic Church ipso facto excludes one from her membership.  This is the sin of schism.  Invincible ignorance renders one free from the guilt of this sin, but it does not prevent the schism from happening.  The person is still outside of the Catholic Church, and since the Catholic Church is a necessary means of salvation, such a person will, ignorance aside, be unable to persevere in a state of sanctifying grace until the point of death. Invincible ignorance does not save.  By making one not guilty of the sin of heresy or schism, what invincible ignorane does do is make God more willing to grant those who possess it the grace of conversion, and it lessens their pains in hell should they never convert. [/quote]

Of course invincible ignorance saves no one, for we are saved by grace, but your view that a person in invincible ignorance is unable to persevere in a state of grace until the point of death, is not compatible with the teaching of the Magisterium as it is reflected in the Encyclical Letter [u]Quanto Conficiamur Moerore[/u] of Blessed Pope Pius IX, and his allocution [u]Singulari Quadam[/u], nor the teaching of Pius XII in his Encyclical Letter [u]Mystici Corporis Christi[/u], or the [u]Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing[/u]. As Blessed Pope Pius IX wrote:

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

Nowhere in this letter does Blessed Pius IX say that a person who is not visibly united to the Church is unable to persevere in a state of grace, clearly such a person is in a disadvantaged position, but regardless of that, the Holy Father indicated that he [i][b]may[/b][/i] be saved. This teaching was reasserted in Pope Pius XII's Encyclical [u]Mystici Corporis Christi[/u] and again in the 1949 [u]Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing[/u]. In that letter, the Holy Office first stated that the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church must be understood as the ". . . Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church."

The letter then goes on to address the nature of explicit and implicit membership in the Church, and says that, "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, [i]can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing[/i]. 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," nos. 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. [i]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[/i]."

This "longing" or "desire" need not always be explicit, but may simply be implicit, as the Holy Office indicated, when it distinguished between catechumens and those who are invincibly ignorant. As the Holy Office said, ". . . this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; [i]but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire[/i], 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."

In reference to those persons who are baptized, but who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, and to those who are only related to the Church through an implicit desire, the Holy Office, referring back to the teaching of Pope Pius XII, explained how, ". . . the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: 'Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.' Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who 'are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,' [i]and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation[/i], but on the other hand states that they are in a condition 'in which they cannot be sure of their salvation' since 'they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church' (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). [i]With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion[/i] (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, [u]Singulari Quadam[/u], in "Denzinger," no. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the Encyclical Letter, [u]Quanto Conficiamur Moerore[/u], in "Denzinger," no. 1677)." Clearly then, it is wrong to say that a man is unable to persevere in a state of grace unless he is visibly and explicitly a member of the Church. It goes without saying that such a man is in a disadvantaged position, as I noted above, but he still [i]may[/i] be saved by the grace of God, and if he is saved, he is saved because he has received the grace of God through the Catholic Church, even though he is ignorant of this fact.

Edited June 30, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 30 2004, 05:24 PM'] Part of me wants Dust to get rid of this thread, because if those who are not formed by their faith read this argument, they may be shaken. However, I cannot allow such a grossly unorthodox stab at the Church and at Rome go undefended.
[/quote]
I don't see any reason for deleting this thread or even for closing it at the present time. In fact it is important that these issues be discussed, and hopefully by discussing them, those who dissent from the Magisterium will be informed about the true nature of the doctrine in question, and as a result, be brought back into full communion with the Catholic Church.

[amarkich]

Jeff, there is no reason to be so hostile. Please provide an [i]authoritative [/i]document which supports your belief. See Paul VI's statements concerning Vatican II which state that the Council presents no new doctrine, so please provice something other than that. Even if you claim that Vatican II did not present new doctrine, but only interpretted it a different way (which is a dangerous concept in itself), please provide the statements from the Council which state a contrary statement.

Apotheoun, that was a cute comment about being brought "back into full communion with the Catholic Church", but since I one of the few people who is in the Church and is not a heretic (at least a material heretic), this comment is inappropriate. Further, since you (I am not speaking necessarily to you specifically but to the people who call on authority of others--especially fallible authority--which Saint Thomas Aquinas calls the worst of all arguments) are so intent on relying completely on authority, even fallible authority, then I think that you should recognize your authority is nowhere to be seen in this matter. You neither have the authority to declare a person a heretic or even to declare what heresy is (by your own logic), and you certainly have no authority as a pastor of souls, so please refrain from making comments to the contrary. With that said, I have not been instructed by my Pastor (after many discussions on the matter) of any error or heresy in any of my beliefs (as these are supported by Church teaching). Thank you.

Edited July 1, 2004 by amarkich