Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306286101' post='2245565'] "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" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16). [/quote] You have to keep reading [i]Lumen Gentium[/i] #16... it goes on to say how they "may" achieve eternal salvation: "...Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. [u]Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have[i] not yet[/i] arrived at an [i]explicit [/i]knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a [i]preparation [/i]for the Gospel.[/u] She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. [u]Wherefore to promote the glory of God and [i]procure the salvation[/i] of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the [b][i]missions [/i][/b]with care and attention[/u].”" Their sincerity/goodness is a preparation for the Gospel, and their salvation can only be secured through the missionary activity of the Church (i.e., here's some poor native striving to live a good life and so is prepared for the Gospel so God, in His Divine Providence sends a missionary to him that he might be saved). [quote]Pope Pius IX wrote in Quanto conficiamur moerore, 7: 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 are [u]able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace[/u] since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.[/quote] These are only able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of "divine light" (which is knowledge) and grace. I would argue that this is an example of some sort of miracle whereby God reveals Himself to someone otherwise incapable of learning the truths of the Faith. Even St. Thomas Aquinas held in [i]De Veritate[/i] that, "Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).." This is also demonstrated in the lives of the Saints: (one example) Venerable Mary of Agreda bilocated no less than 500 times to instruct and convert the native americans and promised them a priest would come to baptize them. When some Franciscan Friars came across the tribe, they found them already catechized and awaiting baptism.
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306287287' post='2245574'] i think aquanis is the one who is controversial though, cause he also say baptism of desire is possible. he always seemed, to me, to teach this meant that the person desired to actually be baptized with actual water, which his definitions didn't include non catholics who knew no better. [/quote] He didn't teach 'baptism of desire' as a doctrine, but as a theological opinion... which is is. It remains to the holder of it to square said opinion with Catholic dogma.
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Posted May 25, 2011 so you seem to agree with Rasha. interesting quotes and discussion http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2211503841&topic=1908
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306287070' post='2245573'] i often say this but it bears saying again. i think it was aquanis who seemed to struggle with the teaching, he said perhaps an angel would give the gospel to those who didnt know before they die. he said this, because the teaching that they go to hell was hard. that means he thought it was hard too, which means that is what was taught. then again, he did focus on the aspect that there might be a way out, so that give give lee way to leniency altogether. but his fundamental premise, though, is that if they arne't catholic when they do, stricly speaking, they go to hell. that's why he had to speculate about angels and such... the teaching was clear he lived during those times of controversy, middle ages, ish. [/quote] Aquinas affirmed that God is not bound by the sacraments and that there are extraordinary means of salvation such as baptism of desire. You need a broader view of theology on this. The views expressed by Aquinas on this are pretty standard Roman Catholic theology. "The excellence of Christ's power consists in this, that He, Who gave them their power, could institute the sacraments. And since cause does not depend on effect, but rather conversely, it belongs to the excellence of Christ's power, that He could bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the exterior sacrament." - Saint Thomas Aquinas, [i]Summa Theologiae[/i], [i]Tertia Pars[/i], Q. 64, art. 3 "But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament." - Ibid, art. 7 And Fides is misrepresenting the meaning of the theological grades of certitude on this. Not all theological opinions are equal or dubious. The possibility and orthodoxy of the baptism of desire doctrine is well established. My suggestion that there is an analog in the sphere of infant baptism is of course dubious theological speculation (opinion is going to far) but I have not claimed otherwise, so... Edited May 25, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306287699' post='2245577'] so you seem to agree with Rasha. interesting quotes and discussion http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2211503841&topic=1908 [/quote] It's not a matter of some Popes being "rigid" and others not. It's the same truth. The teachings of our contemporary Popes must be seen in light of previous Popes and Councils, etc. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus has the same meaning today as it did when it was formally defined, yes, even by Pope Eugene IV: “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 L_D, I tried to hash out the orthodoxy of 'baptism of desire', but you seem to have given up.
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) this is a little more 'lenient' contra your reading, though... the Church expressly teaches that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God" (Singulari Quadam), that "outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control" (Singulari Quidem) Edited May 25, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Posted May 25, 2011 it's strange that Fides wants to inject 'rigid' understandings into the to me obvious lenient understandings, and LD wants to inject 'lenient' into the obvious to me rigid...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306288476' post='2245582'] this is a little more 'lenient' contra your reading, though... the Church expressly teaches that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God" (Singulari Quadam), that "outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control" (Singulari Quidem) [/quote] ... "will not be held guilty of THIS" (i.e., infidelity to a faith of which he was completely ignorant). It doesn't say that ignorance will save him. The latter quotation is part of a larger context in which the Holy Father explicitly says: "The Church clearly declares that the [b]only [/b]hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which teaches the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love. [u]This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church[/u] which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control. The Church teaches and proclaims that if sometimes we can use human wisdom to study the divine word, our wisdom should not for that reason proudly usurp to itself the right of master. Rather, it should act as an obedient and submissive servant, afraid of erring if it goes first and afraid of losing the light of interior virtue and the straight path of truth by following the consequences of exterior words." Again, such a person excused by ignorance will either not be held guilty of the sin of infidelity (but would still be punished for other sins against the natural law, or simply even Original Sin alone); or, if open and honestly seeking the truth would have the Faith revealed to him by either a missionary or some other act of God.
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306288943' post='2245583'] it's strange that Fides wants to inject 'rigid' understandings into the to me obvious lenient understandings, and LD wants to inject 'lenient' into the obvious to me rigid... [/quote] It is not injecting a rigid understanding... it is viewing the teachings of the Church within (as Pope Benedict XVI would say) a "hermeneutic of continuity". The teachings of the Church are the same, they do not change. Edited May 25, 2011 by Fides_et_Ratio
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Posted May 25, 2011 i have read some popes who said that 'it's not that they'll be condemned for their ignorance, it's that they'll be condemned for..' etc etc. it is interesting to see two strong propenents of a 'strict' view of extra nulla, who also follow the current pope as infallible. i liked that tidbit on the saint who appeared to the indians, and told to wait for water baptism. wikipedia says that she's been unburied twice and shown incorrupt. i wont deny that the idea of a consistent catholic church brought back fond memories. you can count me as at best skeptical about the lack of contradiction, but all said, interesting indeed.
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) 'have the faith revealed to them'.... isn't that technically not a water baptism, though, and so, if one were to follow the 'more fundamentalist catholic' approach to this, not be sufficient for salvation? and what does 'some other act of God' mean? that's not water baptism......are you saying that it has to be something where they get taught and baptized, eg an angel baptizes or something monumental? maybe you do follow that nuance of some, who say 'baptism of desire' can mean at least if they desire actual water done properly? otherwise, what separates you from LD and the other 'modernist' catholics? Edited May 25, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c
Nihil Obstat Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 I learned over time that when L_D has something to say, it benefits one to listen really really closely.
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306288290' post='2245581'] L_D, I tried to hash out the orthodoxy of 'baptism of desire', but you seem to have given up. [/quote] You ppl will do fine without me. [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306288943' post='2245583'] it's strange that Fides wants to inject 'rigid' understandings into the to me obvious lenient understandings, and LD wants to inject 'lenient' into the obvious to me rigid... [/quote] Lol. I was only responding to the post I quoted. I see that immediately after that you posted something quite different. No worries. Btw, hopefully Aloysius posts soon. I agree with whatever he posts, ipso facto.
goldenchild17 Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1306297288' post='2245629'] I learned over time that when L_D has something to say, it benefits one to listen really really closely. [/quote] lol yeah I figured that one out awhile ago too. I was hoping this would go somewhere because this is one of the few areas where I do disagree with L_D (for the moment). I would have been very interesting in hearing his reasoning of why Limbo is "horse croutons"... I do fully agree with and believe in baptism of desire and blood, and while I believe there may be a possibility that babies from Christian families who died before they were able to be baptized (although the intent to have them baptized is there) to attain baptism of desire based on the faith/intent of their parents, I am not as equally convinced yet that this baptism of desire is applicable in cases of non-Christian families where the parents had no intention of baptizing the baby had it survived. oh well perhaps another time. Edited May 25, 2011 by goldenchild17
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) [quote name='goldenchild17' timestamp='1306311585' post='2245693'] lol yeah I figured that one out awhile ago too. I was hoping this would go somewhere because this is one of the few areas where I do disagree with L_D (for the moment). I would have been very interesting in hearing his reasoning of why Limbo is "horse croutons"... I do fully agree with and believe in baptism of desire and blood, and while I believe there may be a possibility that babies from Christian families who died before they were able to be baptized (although the intent to have them baptized is there) to attain baptism of desire based on the faith/intent of their parents, I am not as equally convinced yet that this baptism of desire is applicable in cases of non-Christian families where the parents had no intention of baptizing the baby had it survived. oh well perhaps another time. [/quote] I'll clarify the horse cr[s][/s]ap sentiment a bit since it is too wide open for interpretation. I completely reject the concept of limbo as hell. I think the Thomistic theory of limbo is more respectable but not convincing. I think if one is going to hold to limbo it ought to be recognized and put forth as a speculation and not asserted to be a revealed truth or official doctrine lest grieving parents be robbed of hope unnecessarily (and of course the Church does not put it forth as doctrine). If the sudden death of an infant before baptism is not an occasion for the salvific and gratuitous will of God to act according to extraordinary means then I don't know what is. God's goodness, grace and power are our hope and the limbo hypothesis is unnecessarily restrictive. Nobody mistake this post for an argument; I'm just stating my opinion to clarify where I'm coming from on the horse cr[s][/s]ap statement (btw, I mainly had "hell" limbo in mind when I chose those words). P.S. The only ppl I can think of atm (other than people in this thread) who question the baptism of desire doctrine are Feeneyites. I vaguely recall a debate between a Feeneyite and an SSPX guy on the issue. lol. edit: stinkin philters Edited May 25, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum
goldenchild17 Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) fair enough and I apologize if it seemed like I was calling you out. I didn't intend to at all. I didn't really intend to post here at all, I was just echoing Nihil, and adding that I wished I could see this one like you did. I need to read more about the Thomistic idea of limbo (or really the Thomistic idea of pretty much anything tbh...) before I can really comment more but I'm not sure how one could really accept Limbo at all if it is not a part of the outside realm of hell, because as far as I know, in the end only heaven and hell will exist, so anything end everything must necessarily be contained within either one. I'm probably just too much of a follower of the ideas of Dante regarding stages of heaven and hell and corresponding punishments in the latter (not the exact punishments, as they were merely symbolic most likely, but the idea of different punishments for different types of people). Anyways, as you say, it isn't a doctrine (although I think it historically a far more respected and accepted an idea than is being made out to be here, and shouldn't be disregarded so easily) so I don't really have much of a position in this thread more than to say I was interested in hearing your case as I was surprised when I first heard you rejected it. Edited May 25, 2011 by goldenchild17
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306290815' post='2245594'] 'have the faith revealed to them'.... isn't that technically not a water baptism, though, and so, if one were to follow the 'more fundamentalist catholic' approach to this, not be sufficient for salvation? and what does 'some other act of God' mean? that's not water baptism......are you saying that it has to be something where they get taught and baptized, eg an angel baptizes or something monumental? maybe you do follow that nuance of some, who say 'baptism of desire' can mean at least if they desire actual water done properly? otherwise, what separates you from LD and the other 'modernist' catholics? [/quote] I would qualify that "having the faith revealed to them" would necessarily include (/culminate in) with sacramental Baptism. I do not subscribe to the theological opinion of "baptism of desire", nor am I obliged to hold it. So when I speak of some other act of God I intend that some miracle would take place (if required) to provide with sacramental Baptism... Ex. A saint bilocating, raising someone from the dead, etc. .. If you are sincerely interested in miraculous accounts there are a few mentioned in the book "Saints who Raised the Dead" by Fr. Hebert, and Joan Carroll Cruz's "Mysteries, Marvels, Miracles"
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1306308439' post='2245688'] Btw, hopefully Aloysius posts soon. I agree with whatever he posts, ipso facto. [/quote] Aloysius was the second reply... http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=79951&view=findpost&p=1521827
goldenchild17 Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306345087' post='2245836'] Aloysius was the second reply... [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=79951&view=findpost&p=1521827"]http://www.phatmass....dpost&p=1521827[/url] [/quote] to be fair that was three years ago He may have something different to say since then, although for the record I do agree with what he said then. I'm still a litte skeptical of the idea of achieving salvation after death so I am not sure of the idea of Limbo being a temporary state where the infants can choose their fate after death, although originally in the Limbo of the Fathers this is basically what happened I think. So I'm open to the idea.
Recommended Posts