When Speculative Theology Goes Wrong

[amarkich]

It is quite popular today to only make use of feelings and emotions when considering the fate of the unbaptized in general, and this is especially the case with unbaptized infants and the unborn. It is clear by the infallible decrees of the Church as well as from the wisdom of the Saints that those who die as infants without Baptism will descend immediately into Hell (as speculate theology, as well as the teachings of the Saints, dictates, to Limbo, the outer part of Hell in which there is natural happiness without the pain of loss or the pain of suffering). The teaching of the Church is below:

"The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in original sin, immediately descend into hell." c.f., Ecumenical (infallible) Council of Florence

"The souls of those who die in mortal sin, or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments." c.f., Council of Lyons II

"If then through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This however, cannot be effected otherwise than through baptism. Pastors therefore should inculcate the absolute necessity of administering baptism to infants, and of gradually forming their minds to piety by education in the Christian religion... The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the Church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death." c.f., Roman Catechism

"No one ascends into the kingdom of Heaven except by the Sacrament of Baptism. No one is excused from Baptism: not infants, nor anyone hindered by any necessity. When the Lord Jesus came to John, and John said: 'I ought to be baptized by Thee, and dost Thou come to me?' Jesus said: 'Permit it to be so for now. For thus it becometh us to fulfill all justice.' (Mt. 3:14-15) Behold how all justice rests on Baptism!" c.f., Saint Ambrose

"Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament (Baptism) shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal church, in which it is the practice to loose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children, because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive, must necessarily remain under the condemnation, of which the apostle says, 'by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation.'" c.f., Saint Augustine, Letter 166: To Saint Jerome

"It (the Roman Church) teaches.... that the souls...of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places." c.f., Pope John XXII

In all of these statements we see the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation (but this is not to be discussed in this thread at this time) and also the defined teaching of the Church, from the Ecumenical Council of Florence, that the souls of those who die with Original Sin only descend immediately into Hell. It is clear that the souls of those unborn babies and infants who die without Baptism will not be able to reach Heaven and partake the Beatific Vision as many Modernists would have us believe. This is the reason that crimes against the innocent young, especially abortion, are so heinous and detestable. Please post comments. God bless.

[p0lar_bear]

The Council of Florence stated:

“The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, go at once into the realm of the dead, to be punished with different penalties.”

However, as Fr. William Most discusses in his essay on Augustine (available online at www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm), this does not necessarily rule out the hope called for in the Catechism:

“[The] "realm of the dead". . . does not always mean the hell of the damned. In the Creed we read that Christ descended into hell. The word punished has the root of Latin poena which need not mean the infliction of positive pain, but merely the loss of something. So it would mean that infants who really die in original sin, are given the loss of the vision of God. This bypasses the question of whether or not God, in some way, might provide grace to them even without a sacrament. He can surely do this if He so wills. St. Thomas, in III. 68. 2. c. says the obvious, that God's hands are not tied by the Sacraments.”

In his August 1863 encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore Pope Pius IX said:

God. . . in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.”

This contradicts the idea that infants, who have no voluntary fault, are condemned to hell (i.e. eternal punishment).

Fr. Most goes on to explain number 1261 of the Catechism:

“Catechism of the Catholic Church: In #1261, after carefully explaining that those who without fault do not find the Church, can still be saved, quoted the words of Christ (Mk 10:14) ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not prevent them,’ added: ‘[this] permits us to have hope that there is a way to salvation for infants who die without Baptism.’

Augustine did write that unbaptized babies go to hell; however, this has never been the teaching of the Church. Although Augustine appears determined on this matter, at the time, it was not settled. St. Gregory of Nazianzen, a contemporary of St. Augustine, held a different view:

“Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish…. I think that…[these] will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong” (Orations, 40, no. 23, available at www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-52.htm#P5093_1680093).

[amarkich]

Speculative theology like the statements by Father Most would be what I was considering in "Speculative Theology Gone Wrong" since this does not line up with Catholic tradition insofar as it is not able to be reconciled with the writings of the Saints and that of the infallible Council of Florence. As Saint Thomas also says, the place of Limbo (of the Fathers) and Hell are in the same place, otherwise the Creed would be erroneous in saying "descendit ad inferos" if Our Lord did not actually descend into Hell; therefore, the "abode of the dead" translation and argument are moot because the place of Hell and Limbo subsist in the same place (physically) according to Saint Thomas. Even if the argument for the "abode of the dead" is considered relevant, Saint Thomas Aquinas's commentary on the location of Limbo ignored, and the idea that the writings of the Saints on the necessity of Baptism considered unimportant, a flaw is seen in the theology of this argument for the simple fact that the Council still infallibly decrees that the souls of those who die with mortal sin or Original Sin only descend into the same place regardless of its name. The argument that holds that the souls of those who die with only Original Sin do not descend into Hell is further disproved by the decree of the Council of Lyons II which states: "The souls of those who die in mortal sin, or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments." This decree clearly states that the souls of those with mortal sin or only with Original Sin descend into the same place to await the same fate with differing degrees, thus treating the unbaptized and those with mortal sin as culpable of the same eternal fate (or lack thereof, not being worthy of the Beatific Vision). The biggest error in this kind of speculative theology, apart from denying Tradition, is that it ignores the decrees of the Council of Lyons II and Pope John XXII. God bless.

Edited July 9, 2004 by amarkich

[ironmonk]

Hell and the "Rhelm of the Dead" are the same thing... also known as Paradise, Prison, etc....


Hell is not fire and brimestone... that is a falicy that came from protestants when they lef the Church.

Gehenna is fire and brimestone.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[crusader1234]

I like Dante's depiction of helllllllll

[qfnol31]

Amarkich,

What about Baptism of desire?

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jul 9 2004, 03:34 PM'] Amarkich,

What about Baptism of desire? [/quote]
The Church has never taught "baptism" of desire. The Church has defined infallibly that only those within the Catholic Church can be saved. In any event, how can someone who has no desire to be Baptised have a "baptism" of desire?

[cmotherofpirl]

Author:
Matt C. Abbott

Description:
This article discusses what constitutes authentic ecumenism and explains the oft-misinterpreted and misrepresented teaching 'extra ecclesiam nulla salus' (“outside the Church there is no salvation”). The author shows that ecumenism is not something invented by Vatican II but goes all the way back to the Church Fathers.
Categories:
Catholicism > Ecumenism

Larger Work:
The Wanderer
Publisher & Date:
The Wanderer Printing Company, July 27, 2000

Item Tools

store, print, email
Highlight Keywords In This Document:

Is 'Ecumenism' a Bad Word?
I remember listening to a conversation among several “traditional” Catholics (you know, the anti-Vatican II/anti-John Paul II/anti-Novus Ordo Missae/Latin Mass only crowd!) when I heard one individual exclaim: “Ecumenism is a bad word!” The others quickly nodded in agreement. (Not exactly a surprising statement and response, considering the source.)

But seriously, ecumenism is a vital mission of the Church that needs to be understood more fully and correctly, especially as we enter this ostensibly pivotal third millennium. Is ecumenism really a bad word? Or, more to the point, does ecumenism require Catholics to compromise their faith? The answer lies in whether we are talking about authentic ecumenism (no) or false ecumenism (yes).

Contrary to what most “traditional” Catholics say, there is such a thing as authentic ecumenism – and it is essential for Christian unity. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Christ bestowed unity on His Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time. Christ always gives His Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ will for her…. The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit” (n. 820).

In Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II also speaks of the urgent need for Christian unity: “By the year 2000 we need to be more united, more willing to advance along the path toward the unity for which Christ prayed on the eve of His Passion. This unity is enormously precious. In a certain sense, the future of the world is at stake. The future of the Kingdom of God in the world is at stake.”

So why is ecumenism so controversial? One central issue is the oft-misinterpreted and misrepresented teaching extra ecclesiam nulla salus (“outside the Church there is no salvation”).

The Catechism quotes Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium on this subject: “Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation…. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it. This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church” (nn. 846-847).

The Catechism goes on to quote Vatican II’s teaching on what is known as Baptism of desire: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation” (n. 847).

And in its section on Baptism, the Catechism teaches what is known as Baptism of blood: “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 without being a sacrament” (n. 1258).

In summary, we know that everyone’s salvation – Catholic and non-Catholic – is through the Catholic Church, either as faithful members of the Church (Baptism of water), or as persons who give their life for Christ (Baptism of blood), or who would belong to the Catholic Church if they knew it was the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ (Baptism of desire).

There are, however, a considerable number of “traditional” Catholics, known affectionately as “Feeneyites” (followers of the late Fr. Leonard J. Feeney and his rigorist and thereby erroneous interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus), who deny Baptisms of blood and desire. They often cite various quotations (mostly out of context) from early Popes, saints, and councils to “confirm” their erroneous position that Baptism of blood and Baptism of desire are false teachings.

Yet we see that this assertion is simply ludicrous. Indeed, Baptism of blood and/or desire was taught by such early Church fathers as Iranaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, and Augustine, and also by the Council of Trent. And the teaching of Baptism of desire was reaffirmed by Pope Pius XII in his 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis and by the Vatican’s Holy Office in1949. So much for the false assertion that this teaching was “invented” by the Second Vatican Council!

It is also asserted by many “traditional” Catholics that ecumenism itself was an invention of Vatican II. This, needless to say, is not the case.

Consider Pope Leo XIII, who tried to encourage an attitude of respect and friendship with the Eastern Churches and with our Protestant brothers and sisters. He never referred to them as heretics, but rather as “separated Christians.”

And consider Pope Pius XII, whose ecumenical outlook in regard to Protestants is most striking. In his 1939 encyclical, Summa Pontificatus, he says that “we cannot pass over in silence the profound impression of heartfelt gratitude made on us by the good wishes of those who, though not belonging to the visible body of the Catholic Church, have given noble and sincere expression to their appreciation of all that unites them to us, in love for the person of Christ or belief in God.”

Also significant during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII was the publishing of On the Ecumenical Movement by the Holy Office in 1949. This document allowed Catholics, with the approval of their bishop, to engage in theological dialog and common prayer with Protestant Christians.

Examples such as these illustrate how ecumenism has profoundly developed over the years, especially since Vatican II and with the post-Vatican II pontificates.

Now there also is such a thing as false ecumenism, which seeks to promote religious indifferentism (all religions are of equal value and therefore it doesn’t matter which one you belong to), universalism (the heretical belief that all people are saved), and syncretism (the combining of various beliefs and practices of different religions as a “compromise”).

But none of these are taught – and could never be taught – by the Church or the Vicar of Christ. Yes, it is (unfortunately) true that some Catholics go too far in this arena and end up promoting erroneous doctrines and ideologies instead of authentic ecumenical dialog. Even a priest can be guilty of this, such as when he allows or encourages non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion – something ordinarily not permitted by the Church.

Yet, to say that the Magisterium itself is teaching and promoting heresy is preposterous, for we know that Christ’s Church is both infallible and indefectible. And all of Pope John Paul II’s ecumenical efforts stem the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which – like the previous 20 ecumenical councils – was guided by the Holy Spirit and thus protected from doctrinal error.

Ultimately, true ecumenism does not require us to give up our Marian devotions (a big no-no in my book!) or in any way compromise our faith; it means joining hands with other Christians and people of goodwill to bring our nihilistic, hedonistic, anti-life, anti-family culture back to God, while at the same time acknowledging our obvious differences. Far from being a bad word, ecumenism is – in the words of John Paul II – “a response to the exhortation in the First Letter of Peter to ‘give an explanation of the reason for our hope’” (1 Peter 3:15).

Sources

1. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

2. “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” by Pope John Paul II (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1994).

3. “Catholic Replies” by James J. Drummey (C.R. Publications, 1995).

4. “Pre-Vatican II Ecumenism” by Dave Armstrong (from his web site).

5. “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: Fr Feeney Makes a Comeback” by Michael J. Mazza (“Fidelity” magazine, December 1994).

6. Catholic Encyclopedia, edited by Fr. Peter Stravinskas (Our Sunday Visitor, 1991).


This item 5281 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org

[amarkich]

Since I specifically asked that this subject not be discussed in this particular thread, I ask that the previous post please be deleted either by the author or by someone who has the capability of doing so. I would be glad to discuss modern errors in another thread, specifically false ecumenism and the bogus "brothers and sisters" clause used to represent heretics. As for now, I ask that the post be deleted by any of the possible means.

As for the question of qfnol31, a person who has no desire whatsoever could not desire to be part of the Church if he dies before reaching the age of reason (N.B., I do not believe in "baptism of desire" in any circumstance since it has never been taught [i]De Fide[/i] by the Church). In any event, to claim that one can be saved without Baptism essentially denies the existence of Original Sin (which, by the way, happens to be something which is infallibly taught by the Church) or, if it does not deny the existence of Original Sin, it certainly denies the effects of Original Sin which is the equivalent of denying Original Sin itself.

Ironmonk, thank you for your comments. I am slightly confused as to your position. It seems to me that you are asserting that not all of Hell contains fire (the pain of sense), and thus, Limbo could be a part of Hell without causing pain to its occupants. Is this a correct assessment of your statement? Thank you. God bless.

[StColette]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Jul 9 2004, 04:23 PM'] The Church has never taught "baptism" of desire. The Church has defined infallibly that only those within the Catholic Church can be saved. In any event, how can someone who has no desire to be Baptised have a "baptism" of desire? [/quote]
BAPTISM OF DESIRE

66. Some people die while being ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and His Church. In such cases, it can be presumed that they have received the Baptism of desire and were saved if they truly searched for the truth and lived righteous lives by the will of God in accordance with their understanding. "It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." (C.C.C. # 1260, 1281)

[cmotherofpirl]

This is not your personal thread.

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote]Since I specifically asked that this subject not be discussed in this particular thread, I ask that the previous post please be deleted either by the author or by someone who has the capability of doing so. I would be glad to discuss modern errors in another thread, specifically false ecumenism and the bogus "brothers and sisters" clause used to represent heretics. As for now, I ask that the post be deleted by any of the possible means.[/quote]

this is the debate table and most rightfully can be posted in this thread.



good day.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Feeneyism is a heresy. And it was condemned long before Fr. Feeney:
[quote][b]Clement I[/b]
"Let us go through all generations and learn that in generation after generation the Master has given a place of repentance for those willing to turn to him. Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying, and received salvation, [b]even though they were aliens to God[/b]" (1 Clement, no. 7 [AD 95]).[/quote]
[quote][b]Justin Martyr[/b]
We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. [b]Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos} were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists[/b], such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas [b]those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid[/b] (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).[/quote]
[quote][b]Clement of Alexandria[/b]
"Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews" (Miscellanies 1:5 [A.D. 208]).[/quote]
[quote][b]Origen[/b]
"[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God" (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]).[/quote]
[quote][b]Augustine[/b]
"[b]I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic.[/b] Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:4[6] [A.D. 400]).
"The apostle Paul said, ‘As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him’ [Titus 3:10]. But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed . . . [b]those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics[/b]" (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]).
"When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body…. All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:28 [39]).[/quote]


The Dude is my name, Patrology my game...

Edited July 10, 2004 by thedude

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The Popes:
[quote][b]Pope Pius IX[/b]
We all know that those who suffer from invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, [b]if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can, by the power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life[/b]. For God, who knows completely the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men, will not permit, in accord with His infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishment (no. 7).
On Promotion of False Doctrines (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore)
"It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. [b]On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord[/b]" (no. 7).
On the Church in Austria (Singulari Quidam)[/quote]

Did Vatican II really deny EENS?:
[quote][b]Vatican II: Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity (Ad Gentes Divinitus)[/b]
"Hence, those cannot be saved, who knowing that the Catholic Church was founded through Jesus Christ, by God, as something necessary, still refuse to enter it or remain in it" (no. 7).[/quote]

[Hananiah]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 9 2004, 08:53 PM'] Feeneyism is a heresy. And it was condemned long before Fr. Feeney: [/quote]
You've been corrected on this issue before. The Holy Office gave explicit permission to Fr. Feeney and his followers to hold their rigorist position when Fr. Feeney's excommunication was revoked through the good offices of Humberto Cardinal Medeiros. Feeneyism is an [i]opino tolerata[/i].

[quote]Clement I
"Let us go through all generations and learn that in generation after generation the Master has given a place of repentance for those willing to turn to him. Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying, and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God" (1 Clement, no. 7 [AD 95]).

Justin Martyr
We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos} were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).

Clement of Alexandria
"Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews" (Miscellanies 1:5 [A.D. 208]).[/quote]
These quotes are all irrelevant. The dogma is that baptism has been necessary for salvation [i]since the promulgation of the gospel[/i]. These Fathers are talking about men who lived before Christ.

[Hananiah]

[quote]Pope Pius IX
We all know that those who suffer from invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can, by the power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life. For God, who knows completely the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men, will not permit, in accord with His infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishment (no. 7).
On Promotion of False Doctrines (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore)[/quote]
This does contradict the Feeneyite position, but it does not support the position of the majority of the people on this board either.

[quote]"It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord" (no. 7).
On the Church in Austria (Singulari Quidam)[/quote]
This doesn't even contradict the Feeneyite position. I don't think anyone on this board is going to deny that invincible ignorance renders one inculpable for the sin of not joining the Catholic Church. However, the Catholic Church is an absolutely necessary means of salvation, and no one outside of her can be saved regardless of whether or not they are guilty of this sin. Just read the first sentence of the very paragraph you quote.

[Hananiah]

[quote]Contrary to what most “traditional” Catholics say, there is such a thing as authentic ecumenism.[/quote]
This is such an error filled sentence. First I find his patronizing tone offensive. Second I do not believe many traditionalists deny that ecumenism of return is a good idea. Third his interpretation of authentic ecumenism is erroneous as he holds an erroneous view of [i]extra ecclesiam nulla salus[/i].

[quote]In summary, we know that everyone’s salvation – Catholic and non-Catholic – is through the Catholic Church[/quote]
This is where he goes wrong. There is no one who ever has been saved or ever will be saved who was not a Catholic. Baptism in whatever form makes one a member of the Catholic Church. There are no people who are saved outside of the Church, but "though" the Church.

[quote]or as persons who give their life for Christ (Baptism of blood)[/quote]
He really needs to stop exclusively reading post-conciliar documents. "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." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Protestant and Eastern Orthodox martyrs who reject the Catholic Church, invincibly ignorant or not, can not be saved. Baptism by blood applies mainly to martyred catechumenates and others who desire to join the Catholic Church.

[quote]or who would belong to the Catholic Church if they knew it was the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ (Baptism of desire).[/quote]
This is an extremely fallacious statement. That the only people Lumen Gentium explicitly excluded from salvation were those who knew the Catholic Church to be the true Church of Christ but rejected her anyway (all 12 of them) does not mean that these are the only people ever excluded in any document produced by the Magesterium of the Catholic Church. If he would be so bold as to read other documents he would find that, in addition to such people, the dogma of [i]extra ecclesiam nulla salus[/i] excludes a great deal more. Baptism by desire applies to people who [i]desire[/i] to join the Catholic Church. It does not apply to people who reject her.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Jul 9 2004, 04:23 PM'] The Church has never taught "baptism" of desire. [/quote]
A doctrine does not have to be taught de fide in order for it to be true. The majority of Church Fathers and the pre-conciliar Popes taught baptism by desire.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]There is no one who ever has been saved or ever will be saved who was not a Catholic. Baptism in whatever form makes one a member of the Catholic Church. There are no people who are saved outside of the Church, but "though" the Church.[/quote]

You are having a semantical argument, and you and he are saying the same thing, merely arguing about the words by which they are said. Baptism, whether Sacramental (by water and the spirit) or non-sacramental (blood or desire) makes one a member of the Church, though not a member of the visible body of the Catholic Church. Thus a "non-catholic" can, in fact, be a member of the Church - though not a visible member. Salvation is only found in the Church.


[quote]He really needs to stop exclusively reading post-conciliar documents. "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."[/quote]

This particular quote is being taken out of context. It was directed towards those individuals who were fully formed, knew the teachings of the Church, and spoke otherwise - namely, heretics. At the time, there was an idea that, though heretics they may be, their actions/dying for faith might save them. The Holy Father explicitly denies this. However, you go too far when you say:

[quote]Protestant and Eastern Orthodox martyrs who reject the Catholic Church, invincibly ignorant or not, can not be saved. Baptism by blood applies mainly to martyred catechumenates and others who desire to join the Catholic Church.[/quote]

The entire principal of invincible ignorance is that, by it, you CAN be saved. Moreover, this quote causes you to fall into contradiction with your later statement that

[quote]This doesn't even contradict the Feeneyite position[/quote]

Feeney is well known for teaching that even a catechumenate who is on his way to be baptised and is killed en route will not attain heaven.

Also:

[quote]These quotes are all irrelevant. The dogma is that baptism has been necessary for salvation since the promulgation of the gospel. These Fathers are talking about men who lived before Christ.[/quote]

I find it very telling that you leave Augustine's quote out. Too difficult to deal with?
St. Augustine was very clear that he considered the souls of the catholic catechumen safe in the eyes of God, and this is most certainly not "before Christ"



On a general note, I would like to point out to everyone that the Traditionalist arguments tend to, as stated in cmom's post, be highly semantical, as well as taking quotes out of the context within which they were (and are) written. Moreover, it is highly telling of such an erroneous theological that it leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the Pope is a heretic. If, as they claim, baptism by blood and desire do not exist, and yet have been [i]infallibly defined[/i] by the Holy Father and Magisterium at the Second Vatican Council, then you are led to two conclusions. First, that the Holy Father and Magisterium are [i]teaching[/i] false doctrines, and second, that as a result of this, they are heretics.

It has been infallibly stated multiple times that no Pope can [i]teach[/i] heresy, and it is a viable opinion that no Pope can [i]believe[/i] heresy.

Thus, the logical conclusion of this erroneous doctrine leads one to a conclusion that is, for a catholic, impossible.

By their fruits they shall be known.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]You've been corrected on this issue before. The Holy Office gave explicit permission to Fr. Feeney and his followers to hold their rigorist position when Fr. Feeney's excommunication was revoked through the good offices of Humberto Cardinal Medeiros. Feeneyism is an opino tolerata.[/quote]
[quote][On baptism of desire]
A doctrine does not have to be taught de fide in order for it to be true. The majority of Church Fathers and the pre-conciliar Popes taught baptism by desire.[/quote]
Feeneyism rejects baptism of desire, yet it is compatible with Catholicism?

[quote][quote]Clement I
"Let us go through all generations and learn that in generation after generation the Master has given a place of repentance for those willing to turn to him. Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying, and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God" (1 Clement, no. 7 [AD 95]).

Justin Martyr
We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos} were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then [b]or who live now according to reason[/b] [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).

Clement of Alexandria
"Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews" (Miscellanies 1:5 [A.D. 208]).[/quote]


These quotes are all irrelevant. The dogma is that baptism has been necessary for salvation since the promulgation of the gospel. These Fathers are talking about men who lived before Christ.[/quote]
Justin Martyr's is relevant (read part in bold), and Augustine's still stands. The others demonstrate the possibility of salvation outside the physical Church, or in this case, the Old Covenant.

[quote][quote]Pope Pius IX
We all know that those who suffer from invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can, by the power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life. For God, who knows completely the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men, will not permit, in accord with His infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishment (no. 7).
On Promotion of False Doctrines (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore) [/quote]


This does contradict the Feeneyite position, but it does not support the position of the majority of the people on this board either.[/quote]
How is this contrary to what the majority of board members believe?

[quote][quote]"It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. [b]On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord[/b]" (no. 7).
On the Church in Austria (Singulari Quidam) [/quote]


This doesn't even contradict the Feeneyite position. I don't think anyone on this board is going to deny that invincible ignorance renders one inculpable for the sin of not joining the Catholic Church. However, the Catholic Church is an absolutely necessary means of salvation, and no one outside of her can be saved regardless of whether or not they are guilty of this sin. Just read the first sentence of the very paragraph you quote.[/quote]
The bold part does contradict Feeneyism, because it teaches that people ignorant of Catholicism will be punished. They claim that if God wants an ignorant person to be saved, he will reveal the Church to them so that they can recieve the sacraments, etc. and that ignorance in one's own fault. A feeneyite says:
[quote]To reiterate: if God knows that John Doe will accept the Truth (whether he's on a desert island or not), God will pre-arrange that the Church be brought to him. On the other hand, if God knows that John Doe is content as he is, and will have nothing to do with the Faith, God is committing no injustice to leave John as he is. St. Alphonsus already explained why so many are ignorant: they don't want to know, so God doesn't reveal Himself to them. They are content as they are, i.e., heaped in sin.
[url="http://www.ihsv.com/areonlycatholicssaved.html"]http://www.ihsv.com/areonlycatholicssaved.html[/url][/quote]
[quote]I don't think anyone on this board is going to deny that invincible ignorance renders one inculpable for the sin of not joining the Catholic Church.[/quote]
Correct, neither do I.
[quote]However, the Catholic Church is an absolutely necessary means of salvation, and no one outside of her can be saved regardless of whether or not they are guilty of this sin. Just read the first sentence of the very paragraph you quote.[/quote]
I agree it is necessary. All who are saved are saved through the Church, whether or not that know about it or are physically present in it. Saying that a person invincibly ignorant of Christ and His Church cannot attain eternal life is against Catholic teaching.