"one Flock And One Shepherd"

[Don John of Austria]

Cmom you continue to agrue a point that was not in dispute, what is in dispute is who the said extraordinary means are for, and what standerds apply to them. This is not "my interpretation" but the ancient and holy interpretation of the Church, I resent greatly the implication otherwise.

"It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.

"

I find it funny that a year ago when I quoted the document this passage comes from to you said Pius the IX was irrelavent, I do not reject any of thisI embrace it BUT IT ONLY APPLYS TO INVICIBLE IGNORANCE.

[Don John of Austria]

Hyper if you were a girl, and I was single I might accept. :rolleyes:

Edited October 17, 2003 by Don John of Austria

[Adeodatus]

I already siad that some one could be saved if they were invincably ignorant, and that allows for those who have never heard of christ, that they might ( I.E. that it is possible) be saved. It was never intended to say that those who had had an oppertunity to hear the Good News and rejected it, would be or even could be saved.

-

I am so sick of hereing that load of garbage. YES HE IS. UNLESS GOD IS A LIAR, He has told us what is needed, he is bound to hold to the Truth of what he has told us, furthermore, the Church has bound it and therefore by Christ promise it is bound in heaven.

Hi, sorry for my absence. I'd long since gone to bed when you guys continued the debate. I'm not sure if I'm using the quote-thing right, so bear with me. Basically I want to comment on two bits of Don John's reply.

First, about invincible ignorance. I wouldn't say that hearing about Jesus cancels the possibility of invincible ignorance. What if all one hears about Jesus is from a rabid misanthrope who loves the idea of people tossing and turning in hell and tells them so? Not exactly an enticement to the Gospel! (I actually have someone like Calvin in mind).

It is not so much as hearing ABOUT Jesus that matters, but hearing JESUS HIMSELF. (Sorry, I ought to use italics or something...these capital letters make me look like I'm shouting, and I'm not.) Non-Christians must meet Christ in US, and if they then reject HIM, then...'outside the Church there is no salvation'. In any case only God can see aright who is and who isn't in invincible ignorance. That's NOT for us to decide, is it?

Secondly, Don John you realise you've painted yourself into a corner and actually said that God is necessitated---that God is forced to do something. In fairness, you say that he binds himself to the sacraments, not that he is forced by something external.

Listen to our holy mother the Church:

'God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.' (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1257).

The Catechism is the 'sure norm of faith' as our holy father Pope John Paul has told us. Don't even begin to suggest that this is a heretical laxity that has crept into the text. Cardinal Ratzinger had a hand in editing it! Nothing escapes his attention, thank God. :D

And just in case you say the English translation is faulty, here it is in the authoritative Latin edition: 'Deus salutem sacramento alligavit Baptismi, sed Ipse non est Suis sacramentis alligatus'.

The Catechism does not contradict the decrees and anathemata of the Council of Trent. How does the Church reconcile the two? Well, by affirming that there are 2 sides to every coin. For example, by his death and resurrection, has Christ saved the world? If yes, then why do people still need to be saved? If no, then why did he suffer and die? The Church says the answer is yes and no. Yes, Christ has saved the whole world and redeemed it with His precious Blood. No, in the sense that we need to 'appropriate' that salvation to ourselves. We need to repent and be baptised to be made a new creation in Christ, to have all our sins forgiven and to receive that sanctifying garce to prepare us to be temples of the Holy Spirit. There is an objective salvation (what Christ has done) and a subjective salvation (our co-operation with God's grace).

So, are the sacraments necessary? Is God bound by the gifts He gives?

(Remember, two sides to every coin) As far as man is concerned, the sacraments are necessary for salvation. Baptism is the ordinary way to salvation. The Church admits that in cases of necessity, the grace of Baptism can be received by those who desire it (votum sacramenti)---without them actually being baptised.

As far as God is concerned, God can communicate grace even without the sacraments. God is all-powerful and utterly free, and can give His grace even in a purely spiritual manner too. Think about the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 10. Cornelius, the Roman centurion (and probably in the 1st century AD version of Jewish RCIA---a proselyte), receives a vision from God of an angel, telling him to go and meet St Peter. When Peter preaches the word to Cornelius and his pals, the Holy Spirit falls upon them and they start speaking in tongues and glorifying God. This happens BEFORE they've been baptized. St Peter concludes, 'Can anyone withold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have?' (Acts 10.47).

So even AFTER the sacraments have been given by Christ to His Church, God shows that He is all-powerful, and in His great love He can give grace to people even outside of the visible sacraments.

The Sacraments are God's gifts to us, the ways in which He actually gives Himself, the Trinity, to dwell in our hearts---and there is no better gift than God Himself! So we can't go around saying, 'I don't need the Sacraments'. But neither can we go around saying, 'God can't do what he likes'.

Peace, and God bless you.

Aloysius, Thanks for the support!!

Edited October 17, 2003 by Adeodatus

[Adeodatus]

Aha! My guardian angel must have brought this to my mind....

On 7 December 1690, the Holy Office under Pope Alexander VIII condemned various propositions put forward by the Jansenist heretics. One of these condemned ideas was this : ‘Pagans, Jews, heretics and others of that kind receive no influence at all from Jesus Christ; hence one rightly concludes that their wills are naked and defenceless, totally lacking sufficient grace.’

But the Jansenist heresy continued. On 8 September 1713, Pope Clement XI, in the Dogmatic Constitution 'Unigenitus Dei Filius' condemned the following idea as heretical: ‘Extra ecclesia nulla conceditur gratia (Outside the Church there is no grace given)’.

'Outside the Church there is no salvation' is true, but we can only understand it the way the Church teaches. One of things we cannot do is to interpret it to mean 'Outside the Church no grace is given'---because the Church says that's heretical!

I rest my case. Time for some lunch methinks. B)

[Don John of Austria]

"

'Outside the Church there is no salvation' is true, but we can only understand it the way the Church teaches. One of things we cannot do is to interpret it to mean 'Outside the Church no grace is given'---because the Church says that's heretical"

Yes it is luckly no one has said it.

[Don John of Austria]

Listen to our holy mother the Church:

'God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.' (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1257).

First, lets start by looking at the entire section which you referance instead of justa little part out of context.

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 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.62 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." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

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 without being a sacrament.

1259

For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260

"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. inDouche, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Well see that section is dealing with a completely differant issue, it is speaking of the baptism of desire, and the baptism of Blood, which while not technicaly a sacrament( as they do not follow the proper outward signs) have always been taught to confer the same baptismal grace, this has nothing to do with invincible ignorance and it is improper to present it as if it did.

On the contrary the section in read clearly states that the Church does not know even if the innocent infant will attain salvation without the grace of baptism.

[Adeodatus]

First, lets start by looking at the entire section which you referance instead of justa little part out of context.

I don't agree that that I used that line out of context. But thank you for citing the whole paragraph. The catechism is a beautiful document and I'm always glad to read it. It reminds me of how wonderful the Catholic Faith really is.

Paragraph 1259 reaffirms the necessity of Baptism, whilst simultaneously asserting the utter freedom of God. It acknowledges the truth of 'Outside the Church there is no salvation', whilst at the same time affirming the error of the idea 'Outside of the Church no grace is given'.

Paragraph 1260 Is about invincible ignorance and the salvation of those who are in it 'in a way known to God'. This is a beautiful section of the Catechism. It affirms that such people (ignorant of Christ and his Church) are saved through 'the Paschal mystery', that is, through the death and resurrection of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Salvation is in Christ ALONE!!! How marvellous! Then it says something really, really important: the Church permits us to suppose that such people need only have an IMPLICIT desire for Baptism, i.e. they don't understand what it is, but if they had, they would have wanted it. An implicit baptism of desire. The knowledge these people have of Christ and his Church may be distorted through the media (which seems mostly anti-Catholic these days anyway) and by the awful and unloving behaviour of Christians. That's why we can't say who is or who isn't in invincible ignorance.

Paragraph 1261 is about unbaptised infants who die in their infancy, never having attained the age of reason and made a choice either way for God or not-God. Yes, the Church says we don't know with certainty what happens to them. But it also says that the Gospels allow us to believe and hope that God saves them through some way known to him alone.

(My own personal view, which I will gladly abandon if the Church ever decides against it, is based on the fact that infants who are baptised don't desire baptism, but they have some adult desire it on their behalf. I reckon that unbaptised infants have Our Lady desiring the grace of baptism for them---Our Lady stands in as god-mother to all those children. She is the mediatrix of every grace. Of course, in all this the underlying hope [and I mean hope as a theological virtue, well-founded on the promises of God] that God Himself desires all men to be saved.)

At the heart of this great dispute, I think, is about a kind of "Weltenshauung", a way of looking at the world. The Catholic way is to talk about who is in heaven, and so we canonise and beatify saints and beati respectively. We NEVER talk about who is in hell, because only God can see human hearts and JUDGE. That's not our job. For heaven's sake, we don't even say that Judas is in hell!

I'll tell you a story, a true one. A few years ago I was visiting a priest friend of mine in Scotland, and we had dinner with 2 other guys: a Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) minister and an MP (Member of Parliament, like a senator) who was a Wee Free (Stricter Presbyterian). We were discussing a dreadful incident at the time, at Dunblane in Scotland, when this man went into a school and shot all these children and killed a lot of them, and then killed himself. The 2 Protestants said, 'Well, for sure, he's in hell.' The Catholic priest and I said, 'Well, we don't know that, do we? But what we can hope for is that those innocent kids are in heaven.' That man had done a hideous deed---without a doubt---, but only God can judge. At this, the other two guys baulked, because they couldn't believe that these innocent children were in heaven. Before they left they admitted that if they were to have died that night, they were convinced they were both going to hell, because they'd been drinking whisky----and what's worse, drinking with CATHOLICS!!!!!!

It's funny, but the priest friend of mine noted that the difference between us was we'd recognise who had gone to heaven, and they only wanted to talk about who'd gone to hell.

I'm not God. May I never pretend to be God!! God bless you.

[Katholikos]

I'll tell you a story, a true one.  A few years ago I was visiting a priest friend of mine in Scotland, and we had dinner with 2 other guys: a Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) minister and an MP (Member of Parliament,  like a senator) who was a Wee Free (Stricter Presbyterian).  We were discussing a dreadful incident at the time, at Dunblane in Scotland, when this man went into a school and shot all these children and killed a lot of them, and then killed himself.  The 2 Protestants said, 'Well, for sure, he's in hell.'  The Catholic priest and I said, 'Well, we don't know that, do we? But what we can hope for is that those innocent kids are in heaven.'  That man had done a hideous deed---without a doubt---, but only God can judge.  At this, the other two guys baulked, because they couldn't believe that these innocent children were in heaven.  Before they left they admitted that if they were to have died that night, they were convinced they were both going to hell, because they'd been drinking whisky----and what's worse, drinking with CATHOLICS!!!!!!

It's funny, but the priest friend of mine noted that the difference between us was we'd recognise who had gone to heaven, and they only wanted to talk about who'd gone to hell. 

That's a powerful story. It illustrates the enormous difference in Catholic and Protestant world views.

When I became a Catholic, I didn't just accept a set of doctrines -- the Church changed my whole outlook on reality and gave me a new mind, eyes and heart. Catholicism is optimistic, light, postive, joyful -- everything God created -- including man -- is good, though man is wounded by the Fall of his First Parents. Protestantism is pessimistic, dark, negative, lugubrious -- as a result of the Fall, all created matter is evil including man -- body, mind, intellect, soul -- and not to be trusted.

When Catholics are baptized or have their sins forgiven in the Sacrament of Penance, their souls become brand new; their souls are "scrubbed clean" of sin -- whether 'original' or actual -- and they are filled with Sanctifying Grace (the Divine Life of God). They are in the same condition they would have been in if the Fall of Adam and Eve had never occurred. Protestants, for the most part, believe they are merely "covered over" with Christ's righteousness when they "get saved." They are like a "snow-covered dunghill" as Luther put it; a blanket of white covers their sins, which enables them to enter heaven, but underneath it all they are still just a pile of manure.

It's a difference worth noting. It's the difference between God-made and man-made religion.

Ave Cor Mariae, Katholikos

[Aloysius]

Katholikos,

that's prolly only true for about half of protestants. remember, protestants are divided. there are liberal branches who think EVERYONE goes to heaven.

anyway, that generalization may be true of the protestant denomination u were in, but i'm sure not all of them are that way.

anyway, the protestants that are that way scare me :ph34r: :unsure:

[Spiritual_Arsonist]

Either come to the Church of God or don't. Christ established A church, not churches. It is not that complicated, Christ is our captain and his church is the ship, set out into the deep my friends!