Giving Communion to non-Catholics

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

lets take a look at a catechism pre dating vatican II shall we??

[Aloysius]

why? I just showed how you agreed with the CCC! you may have a stricter interpretation than most (I do as well) but the CCC is merely teaching inculpable ignorance making the sin of remaining outside the Church not mortal.

[Aloysius]

Here, how is the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X for you? your avatar indicates you like him

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/uploads/av-2482.jpg[/img]

[quote]27 Q: Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?

A: No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
28 Q: How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?

A: The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.
29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation [/quote]

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

that works for me

[Aloysius]

so you agree with the teaching of the CCC, and thus Vatican II, regarding the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus? that inculpable ignorance makes one inculpable of a mortal sin of being outside the church.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i am not a feenyite.

i do not accept the CCC

this is why

particular, the novelties of Vatican II appear in the following paragraphs:

*

an infatuation with the dignity of man (§§225; 369; 1700; 1929...),
*

such that we may hope for the salvation of all the baptized (§§1682ff),
*

even non-Catholics (§818),
*

or those who commit suicide (§2283),
*

and of all the unbaptised, whether adults (§847),
*

or infants (§1261);
*

which is the basis of all rights (§§1738; 1930; 1935) including that of religious liberty (§§2106ff),
*

and the motive of all morality (§1706; 1881; 2354; 2402; 2407, etc.),
*

a commitment to ecumenism (§820f; 1399; 1401) because all religions are instruments of salvation (§§819; 838-843; 2104),
*

collegiality (§§879-885),
*

over-emphasis on the priesthood of the faithful (§§873; 1547; 1140ff, etc.).

Edited August 23, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[Aloysius]

well, did you want me to argue with you on fifty different issues at once? you can agree with part of the catechism. we must acknowledge what we agree on so we stop greiving the Lord with our doctrinal disagreements.

[quote]such that we may hope for the salvation of all the baptized (§§1682ff),
*
even non-Catholics (§818),
*
or those who commit suicide (§2283),
[/quote]

all of these, understood in their proper context, are simply referring to inculpable ignorance of the mortal sins. so why can't you agree with them?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

the reason i don't agree with them is because of

the catechism says since we don't know if non-catholics can or can not be saved we must allow freedom of relegion

thats why.

[Fidei Defensor]

2108
The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.

[Aloysius]

hold up, one thing at a time though. do you agree with this understanding of inculpable ignorance which applies to all the CCC paragraphs I quoted from you? if so, then you agree with those specific CCC paragraphs.

"freedom of religion" is a whole other animal which is ultimately a smart political move admitting that there no longer exists any truely catholic states and we need freedom to practice our own religion. but we needn't get into that. one thing at a time, my friend.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

what are you quoting?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

lets just stay away from the CCC since its riddled with post-concliar errors.

[Aloysius]

why does it matter what he's quoting? read it for the substance! for goodness sake man, apply your God-given intellect! the Church doesn't want drones!

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i thought we were not going into relegious freedom

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 23 2005, 01:12 PM']i thought we were not going into relegious freedom
[right][snapback]695761[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You werent, but you brought it up again.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[It is an error to say that] "in this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever."
- Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Error #77, Dec. 8, 1864.

"They do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls...namely that ‘liberty of conscience and of worship is a right proper to every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society.’ "
- Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, #3, Dec. 8, 1864.


"Men who really believe in God must... understand that differing modes of worship... cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God."
- Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, #31, Nov. 1, 1885.

[Aloysius]

okay... so show what contradicts that...

I know you think it's obvious... but humor me.

and, are you going to admit you agree with those paragraphs of the CCC based on inculpable ignoracne, even if you have a slightly stricter interpretation of them than many Catholics?

[JP2Iloveyou]

I don't have time to get into all of this today, but for now, suffice it to say that I for one will follow the Church. That means that I will follow His Holiness Pope John Paul II and His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. I will follow the teachings of the Church as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 1992. This is what Christ commanded us to do. It is quite a claim to say that the Catechism is "riddled with errors." Personally, although I am not a moderator of this site, I would not allow such comments to be posted on my website. They cause scandal to, and confuse, otherwise faithful Catholics who may not be as learned in their faith, they promote disunity, and they have the potential of leading Catholics away from the Church.

EENS, let me offer a quick lesson in logic. The opposite of P is "not P." You seem to be claiming that the opposite of P is Q. in all seriousness, you are the one who is in error, not the Catechism and certainly not the Pope and Magisterium.

[jasJis]

[quote]846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. 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 to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

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.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338[/quote]
and
[quote]27 Q: Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?

A: No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
28 Q: How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?

A: The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.
29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation [/quote] both say essentially the same thing with different terminology.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i understand that thats why i agree with it..............