Dominus Iesus – Jesus is the Saviour of the World
Do you know the ecumenical weight of this encyclical? Want to understand ecumenical challenges? Here’s a summary. It’s about hope, and defending the Truth.
On August 6, the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord, of the Holy Year 2000 the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, issued a declaration Dominus Iesus on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church. Pope John Paul II wanted to reassert, to the faithful and to the world, St. Paul’s declaration to the Corinthians that “Jesus is Lord.” [1]
The declaration addressed ecumenical concerns regarding the affirmation of oneness and salvation for all people, both within the Church and without. This declaration of unicity (oneness) sparked the already long-existing controversy among other Christian denominations and other religions, upsetting even Catholic traditionalists and modernists who disagree on the theological explanations of the relationship between Christ, the Church and the Kingdom of God. [2]
The month after the declaration was published L’Osservatore Romano published an interview with Cardinal Ratzinger who pointed out that the critics proffer opinions of this nature because they are more focused on politics and the division of power than on content. [3] The declaration begins with the Church’s universal mission and the disciple’s commission: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” [4]
Interreligious dialogue is part of the Church’s evangelizing mission and there are still questions to be explored about the “mystery of unity.” [5] Paths of theological research can discern this unity but only in obedience to “certain indispensable elements of Christian doctrine” which may not be subjected to the relativistic tendencies of modernity. [6] The document’s oft missed purpose is not to propose solutions to these theological questions, but “to set forth again the doctrine of the Catholic faith in these areas.” [7]
The Revelation of Jesus Christ.“For in Christ the whole fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form.” [8] Since the beginning of the Church, the Apostles, the Church Fathers and Doctors, and the Church councils, have continually reasserted the revelation of Jesus Christ and defended against error. St. Athanasius in the fourth century taught that “Christ alone is true God and Lord.” [9] The Council of Chalecedon in 451 also taught “following the Holy Fathers” and “with one voice” that Christ is “true God and true man.” [10] It is affirmed still by the Second Vatican Council that this “deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines forth in Christ.” [11] The new and definitive covenant will never pass away and there will be no further new public revelation until the return of Christ. [12]
The 1990 encyclical Redemptoris missio of Pope John Paul II also proclaims that the revelation of Christ is the “definitive self-revelation of God” and the “fundamental reason why the Church is missionary by her very nature.” [13] The Church also accepts the sacred and canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, because they are written “under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” and have “God as their author.” [14] Any theories that the revelation of Christ is incomplete or imperfect are contrary to Church teaching and to the Bible, and obedience of faith requires the faithful to defend against such errors. [15]
Other religions which do not recognize this truth are “still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself.” [16] If they search in good faith, it is possible they reflect some “ray of that truth” even if they contain “gaps, insufficiencies and errors.” [17] For instance, there are contemporary theological opinions that Christ was only a historical figure who partially manifested to humanity the mystery of salvation from God, and that he was “one of the many faces” of the Logos communicated over time. [18] They then logically conclude that the full revelation of salvation was not given by Christ and that through the Holy Spirit the message is still being exercised “in addition to” and “beyond” the humanity of Christ. [19] Such heresy in not a new concept going back even to the fifth century and the Nestorian heresy which held that Christ is not really God and man, but a man in which the Holy Spirit only dwells. [20] This is, and always has been, contrary to Church teaching which considers the salvific incarnation of the Word to be a full “trinitarian event”. [21]
The Church also reaffirmed in the Second Vatican Council that that since Christ is God, the “salvific action of Jesus Christ, with and through his Spirit, extends beyond the visible boundaries of the Church to all humanity.” [22] The Magisterium of the Church firmly recalls this truth of a “single divine economy” that the Risen Christ is at work in the hearts of all humanity through the Holy Spirit, maturing them towards salvation. [23] “No one, therefore, can enter into communion with God except through Christ, by the working of the Holy Spirit.” [24]
Unity, Unicity, and Universality. The document also declares in firm words that there is no biblical foundation to deny the oneness (unicity) and salvific universality of Jesus Christ showing how in fact the Bible testifies that Christ is the “Saviour of the world.” [25] The first Christians spread the message of salvation to the Jewish people and to the pagan world, preaching that there is One God and one Lord Jesus Christ who died and was raised for the sake of all. [26] Theologians are invited to reflect on other beliefs and to recognize positive elements that may be considered part of the truth of the plan of salvation, but only if they are not contrary to Catholic faith in any way. [27] This exercise makes some people nervous, but unity is part of revelation. Christ is absolutely the Saviour of the world and has universal significance; he is the central point of history. [28]
The Church was constituted by Christ and his work of salvation continues through her, as a living body with Christ as the head “a single Bride of Christ” being guided by his Spirit, “a single Catholic and apostolic Church.” [29] This is why the Catholic faithful must profess a historical continuity of apostolic succession. In one of the principle 1964 documents of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the word “subsist” was used to reconcile the doctrinal statements that the “Church of Christ exists fully in the Catholic Church” and that also there may be elements of truth outside her structure in ecclesial communities not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. [30] The use of this word caused some confusion.
The 1973 declaration in defense of Catholic doctrine against certain errors from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mysterium Ecclesiae, made it clear that the Christian faithful are not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is a divided collection of communities, or that nowhere in the world does the Church visibly exist. [31] The churches out of communion suffer from defects, but even so, are not deprived of their significance in the mystery of salvation. [32] The Church sees this as a wound, but not as proof that there should be no real unity. It is instead evidence that the mission of the Church to proclaim the Gospel message is all the more necessary. [33] She is called to gather people in to the “the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” [34]
The theological work, therefore, is in explaining the connections between Christ, the Kingdom of God, and the Church. From revelation it is known that these three terms cannot be separated without distorting the meaning of any of them; Christ cannot be separated from the Church or the Kingdom of God and neither can those be separated from each other. [35] The Kingdom of God even includes the work outside visible boundaries. [36] A warning is given also against the errors also of a one-sided accentuation on any of the three terms.
Besides other Christian churches, theological reflection of other religions is also encouraged, within the same boundaries, in Dominus Iesus. [37] However, it is again critically held that there is no salvation outside the Church, but there is a real possibility of salvation for all mankind. It also must be carefully heeded that other religions also contain errors which are obstacles to salvation, and so a guard against indifference and relativism must remain in every prudence consideration of other religions. [38]
Not an Unattainable Utopia. Returning to Lumen Gentium the reminder is repeated that it is necessary to keep these two truths together: 1) There is a real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind, and 2) the Church is necessary for this salvation. [39] Although people may not be formally a part of the Church, by the grace of Christ they may have a relationship with the Church. The Second Vatican Council did not articulate exactly how this may be, but explained in the decree on the missionary activity of the Church, Ad Gentes, that God achieves this unity “in ways known to himself.” [40]
People of other religions have expressed offense at these truths but (then) Cardinal Ratzinger explained that even Martin Luther was aware that he broke with the unity of the Church, so far as to regard her as the instrument of the Antichrist. [41] The harsh reactions from other ecclesial communities is unwarranted because it is other Evangelical structures who have no desire to be in communion with the Church, not the Church who has no desire to be united. Even though there is no Church and no salvation outside the Catholic Church, there is an ecclesial reality outside it.
The Catholic Church is convinced that a divided Church is irreconcilable with Christ’s promise and thus this unity and salvation for all is not an “unattainable utopia,” but a reality and this is the strongest incentive to pursue unity. [42] No human merits his own salvation; it comes to everyone through grace, therefore, the faithful are exhorted all the more, out of love for all people, to proclaim with the Church that Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life.” [43] Christians are a people of hope and faith, and theological reflection should always seek to reconfirm this in a convincing and effective way. [44]
[learn_more caption="End Notes"]
1. 1 Corinthians 12:3, Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible.
2. Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, Cardinal Ratzinger, August 6, 2000, section 18.
3. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, “Answers to Main Objections Against Dominus Iesus,” EWTN Library.
4. Dominus Iesus, section 1, Mark 16:15-16 Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible.
5. Dominus Iesus, section 2.
6. Dominus Iesus, section 3.
7. Ibid.
8. Dominus Iesus, section 5. Colossians 2:9-10 Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible.
9. St. Augustine, On the Incarnation of the Word, New Advent, section 45, Dominus Iesus, section 6.
10. Council of Chalcedon – 451, “The Definition of Faith” Fordham University, paragraph 264.
11. Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI, Vatican, November 18, 1965, section 2, Dominus Iesus, section 5.
12. Ibid.
13. Redemptoris missio, On the permanent validity of the Church’s missionary mandate, Pope John Paul II, December 7, 1990, Vatican, section 5, Dominus Iesus, section 5.
14. Dominus Iesus, section 8, Dei Verbum, section 11.
15. Dominus Iesus, section 7.
16. Ibid.
17. Dominus Iesus, section 8, Redemptoris mission, section 55.
18. Dominus Iesus, section 9.
19. Ibid.
20. Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. Fundamentals of Catholicism, Volume 2: God, Trinity, Creation, Christ, Mary. (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1995), page 219, Dominus Iesus, section 10.
21. Dominus Iesus, section 12.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Dominus Iesus, section 12, Redemptoris mission, section 5.
25. Dominus Iesus, section 13, 1 John 4:14 Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible.
26. Dominus Iesus, section 13.
27. Dominus Iesus, section 14.
28. Dominus Iesus, section 15.
29. Dominus Iesus, section 16.
30. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, Vatican, section 8 and 15, Dominus Iesus, section 16.
31. Mysterium Ecclesiae, Declaration in Defense of the Catholic Doctrine on the Church Against Certain Errors of the Present Day Issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 24, 1973, Vatican, section 1, Dominus Iesus, section 17.
32. Dominus Iesus, section 17.
33. Dominus Iesus, section 18, Lumen Gentium, section 5.
34. Ibid.
35. Dominus Iesus, section 18.
36. Dominus Iesus, section 19.
37. Dominus Iesus, section 20, Lumen Gentium, section 14.
38. Dominus Iesus, section 22, Redemptoris mission, section 36.
39. Dominus Iesus, section 20, Lumen Gentium, section 38.
40. Decree Ad Gentes on the Mission Activity of the Church Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965, Vatican, section 7, Dominus Iesus, section 21.
41. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, “Answers to Main Objections Against Dominus Iesus.”
42. Ibid.
43. Dominus Iesus, section 22, John 14:6 Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible.
44. Dominus Iesus, section 23.
[/learn_more]
[learn_more caption="Bibliography"]
• Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, “Answers to Main Objections Against Dominus Iesus,” EWTN Library
• Council of Chalcedon – 451, “The Definition of Faith” Fordham University.
• Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, Cardinal Ratzinger, August 6, 2000.
• Decree Ad Gentes on the Mission Activity of the Church Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965, Vatican.
• Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI, Vatican, November 18, 1965.
• Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, Vatican.
• Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible.
• Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. Fundamentals of Catholicism, Volume 2: God, Trinity, Creation, Christ, Mary. (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1995).
• Mysterium Ecclesiae, Declaration in Defense of the Catholic Doctrine on the Church Against Certain Errors of the Present Day Issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 24, 1973, Vatican.
• Redemptoris missio, On the permanent validity of the Church’s missionary mandate, Pope John Paul II, December 7, 1990, Vatican.
• St. Augustine, On the Incarnation of the Word, New Advent.
Image Credit: Wikipedia Flagellation of Our Lord Jesus Christ (William-Adolphe Bouguereau 1880)
*In the interest of absolute completeness in attribution, all numbers are referenced in gratitude to Euclid, all English words sourced from the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary and all of being, humbly and in exceeding awe, is acknowledged as the will of God.
[/learn_more]
Category: Church History, Doctrine, Featured, Modernism, Theology
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Can’t it be the case that all religions are true?
Full disclosure: I think the answer is “no”.
If person #1 believes A is true and B is false
And person #2 believes A is false and B is true
And if some third person #3 says that both #1 and #2 are right… (can’t we all get along?)
then we have a problem because if both #1 and #2 are right, it follows that A = ~A which completely obliterates Aristote’s pesky principle of non contradiction:
We know by intuition that A AND ~A is a false statement
So we can’t all be right.
I open with this question. We can’t all be right, so what is it about Christianity that entitles it to claim to have discovered the truth?
Hint: “I have come not to abolish the law but to perfect it”…
One explanation I’ve heard is that persons #1, #2 and #3 can be looking through different windows, and can each be “right” as to what each sees, even if each sees or perceives something different.
From the other side of the window we are taught – “For now we see through a glass, darkly….”
Actually I wanted to comment on the picture above this essay. The man on the left with the whip is the strongest element in it, stronger that even Jesus or the right side man who has what appears to be a more powerful stroke. The man on the left seems to me to be weaker but methodical and determined, sort of like the world itself. That awkward stance is very familiar but untraceable. I am aware that I am looking through only one side of the view finder.
Peggy Sue, whenever I read your comments I feel like I am this close to agreeing with you but I always have a qualifier that makes us seem far apart.
Yes, persons 1, 2, & 3 see different aspects of a thing. They have different perspectives. The viewpoints can seem so discrepant that one could think their concepts are incommensurable.
My difference with you is that I don’t believe things have to remain at an impasse. We naturally want to know why we arrived at different conclusions because our better selves want to reconcile with others. Do we have facts wrong? Do we define our terms completely? Do we avoid some of the evidence? Did we make a mistake in our method of inference? Are there irrational factors that blind us to some things?
In short, I don’t think we’re condemned to living in incommensurable worlds. In little prisons. I think that as long as our hearts are in order, all of us want the truth and will do the hard work to align ourselves to it. That’s why St. Augustine and many other great teachers emphasized the priority of personal qualities as pre-requisites to living out an intellectual vocation.
Howard,
Thank you. You reminded me to put in the image credit. Yikes! Sorry.
If you click on the image at the top, you can now see the whole painting.
Flagellation of Our Lord Jesus Christ (William-Adolphe Bouguereau 1880)
“That awkward stance is very familiar but untraceable.” Wow, yes, exactly. There is a little boy hiding his face in the background too.
Jeff, you reminded me of something. Howard you may have seen it. Peggy? I love this. Love it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzBT39gx-TE&feature=player_embedded#%21
Jeff said, “I don’t think we’re condemned to living in incommensurable worlds” “but I always have a qualifier that makes us seem far apart.”
Yes, I see.
“I don’t believe things have to remain at an impasse.”
In my old country there is a saying, “The last impasse is the belief that there is an impasse.”
Stacy, at first I thought that Lewis’s voice sounded a lot like Chesterton on EWTN. Same bunch.
C.S. Lewis was an absolute genius in the use of language and thought. He fills an area of evangelism and apologetics that Catholics haven’t been able to match. I remember someone, I don’t know if it was his son or secretary(?) that thought he was on the path to Catholicism from Anglicanism.
Another protestant that I believe does reach Lewis’s ability to explain these lofty thoughts is Ravi Zacharias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Zacharias
http://www.rzim.org/usa/rzimnews/tabid/599/articleid/10452/cbmoduleid/1452/default.aspx
Jeff said “I think that as long as our hearts are in order…”
Hands off. She is my girl! She promised herself to me.
I realize it is unfair to say go do the research yourself. I offer this easy to watch sample instead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpmu42g6mDs&feature=player_embedded#!
Howard,
I did look up Mr. Zacharias yesterday, thank you, I hadn’t heard of him. Thank you for this video though because I probably wouldn’t have found it myself. This is awesome! Wow, very, very powerful. I love what he said, and it goes right to the heart, and the mind.
This video also goes with the topic of the encyclical, ecumenism.
Thanks again Howard. Very inspiring.
Howard,
Did you see this?
http://www.conversiondiary.com/2012/04/life-on-the-rock.html
Also, Chelsea writes at Ignitum Today.
http://www.ignitumtoday.com/
YAAAAY!
Stacy, I saw the show last Thursday on TV.
I am of the Pius XII generation which was not “on fire” but fired upon until JPII. Our Catholic family is amazing. Ignitum and “Life on the Rock” are examples of the best of what we have to offer. I have felt honored to be marching alongside this generation who are lending their bodies, voices and passion to witness our faith. We are certainly interconnected – ageless and timeless.
My parish website http://www.holyspiritcatholicmission.org
I am afraid that it is simply impossible to deny the collapse of Catholic missionary fervor since the general adoption of the “well, there is and isn’t salvation outside the Church” post-conciliar “development of doctrine”.
One can certainly find a way to perform the mental gymnastics to absolve the actual formulations of the Council from irredeemable heresy.
That is damned faint praise.
But it is simply impossible to read the formulations of the ancient, irreformable, *certainly defined* dogma- Outside the Church there is no salvation- and expect me to assent to the notion that this dogma is believed exactly the same way and in exactly the same sense as when it was first proclaimed.
It isn’t.
Therefore, one can adhere to the dogma as believed when defined, or one can abandon the dogma so believed when defined.
The catastrophe of our mission is precisely this:
Any logical person, reading the teachings of the post-conciliar magisterium as Stacy has elucidated them above, will come to the conclusion that it is entirely unnecessary to convert to Catholicism.
Catholicsm itself says so.
Any person reading the dogmatic formulations of the Popes and councils, will come to the conclusion that it is absolutely necessary to convert to Catholicism.
I believe the latter.
May God have mercy on us, and may He somehow restore us.
Luke 18:8, it seems, is not in any way at all a rhetorical question…….
Rick,
Yet, I’m still a convert. How do you explain that? Am I illogical?
This encyclical did not change anything, indeed it specifically says it is “to set forth again the doctrine of the Catholic faith in these areas.” Have we come to understand it better over time? It seems so. We are human, we don’t know everything.
I can understand this because I’m a convert, and a mother.
When my oldest child was young, I failed to catechize her, didn’t even teach her about God at all. When I converted, she came along to Mass because I made her. When she was old enough for Confirmation, she left the Church and left the family. We barely spoke for years. She made bad choices, the same ones she saw me make as a young mother.
But I realized – because I converted:
-that there was always a possibility for her to be reconciled with the family and with God, even when I wasn’t sure how it would ever happen.
-that the family and the Church necessarily MUST exist for reconciliation to happen.
-that it was necessary for me never to become indifferent to sin, but to tell her the Truth without compromise.
-that it was necessary for me to pray and hope and have faith because Christians are a people of hope and faith.
-that it was necessary for me to have a relationship with her, to love her even when it seemed she rejected me – lots of tough love.
-that salvation comes to everyone through grace.
Six years later, she is completing RCIA.
So, no, I don’t see how (as you say) that Catholicism itself says it is unnecessary to convert, but the opposite. You seem to assume that deep in a person’s soul they don’t really want to be reconciled with God, I see the opposite. People want to belong to their family. I could have, after all, just said “Goodbye” to my daughter and slammed the doors shut and gone on with my life until when or if she decided to come around. I owed her more because I love her too much.
How is that abandoning Truth? That is how I read this encyclical.
Well, Stacy, first let me say that I am also a convert, and I am also blessed with children who hold the Catholic Faith.
Let me reiterate, however, that we are faced with an unprecedented disaster in the Church, one which can, I suppose, be denied even at this late stage, but which I am not able to deny.
The unprecedented disaster consists, precisely, in the collapse of missionary fervor in the Church, and the reversal of the Faith in its European heartland.
These are facts which can either, as I say, be ignored, or else addressed.
I choose to address them.
In addressing them, I find that the Church no longer stresses, no longer implores and goes to the ends of the Earth in order to *save souls by converting them to the Catholic Faith*.
She dialogues.
She issues densely reasoned and deeply nuanced theological reflections on just why and how it is that one can be saved without converting to the Catholic Faith.
Now.
It is not at all difficult for me to read “Dominus Iesus”, and compare it to “Unam Sanctam”, and predict which view of the Church will result in the conversion of the world, and which will not.
“Unam Sanctam” is, like the Faith itself, clear, utterly straightforward, and missionary.
“Dominus Iesus” is, like the modern Church itself, ambiguous, difficult, reflective, and uncertain.
The first proclaims an urgent necessity.
The second- I can think of no other way to put it- the second attempts to square the circle.
By their fruits you shall know them.
The fruit of Unam Sanctam was a converted Christendom.
The fruit of Dominus Iesus (and it itself is one of the very best of the modern attempts to address the question of salvation) remains, as does the fruit of the Second Vatican Council itself, a continuing free fall collapse of the faith in the heartland of Europe, and a progressive loss of liberty of action and conscience for the Church in the West generally..
I suppose that what divides us on this question is that you are able to maintain the fiction that the dogma “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” is still believed and practiced in the same way it was believed and practiced when it was proclaimed.
Either that, or else you believe that we understand it better than the Scriptures, the Popes, the Councils have done before us.
I do not believe we understand it better.
I suppose that is because I believe that the modern formulations are not similarly protected, as are the earlier, infallible proclamations of the papal magisterium.
By their fruits you shall know them.
Rick, years ago I lived in West Africa. I knew missionaries there Catholic and Protestant. I lived with a missionary family for a while. This was nearing the end of the great missionary activity of the centuries by Europeans. Today I belong to a church, called a mission by the parish it is under, that is headed by a priest from the Philippines. It was formally served by a Nigerian priest – we have become the ones in need of salvation. If you look outside of Europe you will see that zeal.
Howard:
Your point is well taken. There are indeed very great signs of hope in some areas of the world, and Africa is a true miracle.
God will not be mocked.
His Word of salvation will reach to all the ends of the earth.
But that salvation is entirely entrusted to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Outside of Her, there is no salvation at all.
Once this truth is recovered- once our sophisticated theologians can once again proclaim it without feeling the need to attach qualifiers- then it will be morning.
“But that salvation is entirely entrusted to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
A tenuous position to say the least unless:
We see from the mouth of Jesus himself that salvation is primarily defined by our creator and to be understood by us all.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Luk 34. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
If the Church is understood as Christ himself then we cannot deny the Church power over all, even those in various degrees of separation or those who have not heard. Since it is foolish to assume that in 2012 we now know what we do, this statement also tells us that there is more to learn, hence the temporal aspect of the Church. The decision for or against salvation for an individual is reserved to God, as always, from the beginning.
Rick,
I would love to *dialogue* with you because when I stop reeling from the slam, you’ve always taught me something. I know that you know what you are talking about.
But…
I’m already trying to read too much and learn it, and this confuses me. I am supposed to be writing a paper about the Catholic understanding of salvation compared to the Modernist understanding from the early 1900′s, and my head is already spinning from trying to read Alfred Loisy alongside Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius X. You know me – I need time to think. Ain’t too fast sometimes.
I could quip back that Unam Sanctam did not convert the world, but that’d honestly just be an ignorant statement since I don’t really know the history of that time well enough to say anything more intelligent. And quips are for cowards. I believe you, I’ll read it. ASAP
Until later…and there will be later. That’s one thing I’ve learned about Rick Delano: He doesn’t waste or mince words. I appreciate that a great deal!
H: If the Church is understood as Christ himself then we cannot deny the Church power over all, even those in various degrees of separation or those who have not heard.
>> The Church has complete power over all, when it comes to salvation. No one at all can be saved outside the Catholic Church.
H:Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
>> Let us not forget what follows:
“”And I give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. *Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall have been bound in heaven*”.
The following solemn,extraordinary definition of the supreme magisterium is, exactly, an act of binding which has been bound in heaven:
“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… 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 they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441 AD)
H: Luke 34. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
>> The Father did certainly forgive them, and indeed gave them the medicine of immortality in the Body and Blood of Him Whom they pierced. Those who rejected this, were judged justly.
H: Since it is foolish to assume that in 2012 we now know what we do, this statement also tells us that there is more to learn, hence the temporal aspect of the Church. The decision for or against salvation for an individual is reserved to God, as always, from the beginning.
>> This is certain. What is apparently difficult for the modern mind is to grasp that God has already told us His decision. It is that there is no salvation at all outside of the Mystical Body of His Only Begotten Son. Those outside that Body cannot be saved. They have no life in them. No wonder our ancestors- the Fathers, the Doctors, the Saints- considered the missionary work so imperative that they sacrificed themselves endlessly.
They clearly understood this commission in a way that we moderns do not, Howard:
[16] For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. [17] For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. [18] He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19] And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. [20] For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved.–Jn 3:16-20
By their fruits you shall know them.
Stacy:
As always, I am just another guy trying to be faithful, and since I know you are trying to do the same we will continue as “iron sharpening iron”.
I would never slam you- what did you think was a slam?
Love to the family- especially the Little Aristotles.
“Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall have been bound in heaven.”
This cannot be unconditional when he has proclaimed
“…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
and it would appear that access to heaven has been given that binds God and makes him the inferior to humanity.
“…no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”
Again I assert that the Catholic Church is more properly called the Church of Christ. In your research have you found a place where the temporal church is allowed to supersede Christ himself.
No, Bill.
It is Pope Eugene IV with whom you haste difficulty, and the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council, and the quote which you despise is a definitive exercise of the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church.
You reject, as erroneous, a defined dogma of the Faith.
This is my whole point.
You qoute Pope Eugene IV “, unless before death they are joined with Her” meaning the Church.
and say “You reject, as erroneous, a defined dogma of the Faith.”
Or is it Lumen Gentium 14 that you reject.
14. This holy Council first of all turns its attention to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is 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 (cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:5), 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.
Fully incorporated into the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who–by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion–are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but “in body” not “in heart.”[12] All children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be the more severely judged.[13]
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, desire with an explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church, are by that very intention joined to her. With love and solicitude mother Church already embraces them as her own.
Howard (sorry I called you Bill above), I accept every syllable of both Cantate Domino’s dogmatic definition, and of Lumen Gentium.
But, forgive, me it seems that you do not.
Do you believe that the “the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops” is something *other than* the Catholic Church?
Thanks…always fascinated to hear how Catholics resolve these questions in these difficult times.
Wondered what you meant by Bill.
In modern times the title “Catholic Church” seems to mean only the administration in Rome, and by those Catholics who want it to conform to secularism. The term wasn’t even used until 100 AD(?). The Church is spoken of as if Christ is something separate from the people. I can only view it as a Mystical Body with modern day fishermen leading the way with divine oversight. I sense in your explanations a reliance on the letter of the law and the power of men – a very rigid Catholicism. I see no conflict with Pope Eugene IV, and should not if it is ex cathedra, and the catechism. How is 848 in conflict?
I accept fully the teachings as in catechism numbers:
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 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.
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.
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.”
Now we are getting somewhere, Howard.
So.
1. Do you believe that there exists any distinction at all between “the Church of Christ” and “the Catholic Church”?
2. Do you believe that there exists any contradiction at all between these two formulations:
a) 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.
b) “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… 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 they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441 AD)
Thanks.
The distinction is made by many. My point is that Christ can be left out of a discussion of salvation except for the cross, leaving the task to men entirely and conclusively.
I see no conflict because of “unless before death they are joined with Her…”
838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”
I sooo want to jump in. I am trying to learn this right now, so I guess what would help me is to know what specifically is wrong in your opinion (anyone) with Dominus Iesus? I thought it covered the doctrinal history very well, how truth doesn’t change, but our expression of it does. That doesn’t mean doctrine evolves, but that we do in certain ways. Even Unam Sanctum was different than what St. Cyprian wrote.
Ducking out…but reading. Thank you! I do appreciate it.
Stacy, I only took issue with Ricks conclusion that (the Church): “She issues densely reasoned and deeply nuanced theological reflections on just why and how it is that one can be saved without converting to the Catholic Faith.” hence it has given up on evangelization.
It just got long winded.
Oh Rick, you know I love ya brother, but I’m going to sound like a liberal here. I assure you, I am no liberal.
My question to you, Rick, is how we can allow the baptism in blood of the martyrs, such as the unborn who are killed daily, while denying that there exist some who are saved without the sacraments?
I sincerely want to know your thoughts on this Rick! It seems that if we allow that the unborn are subject to God’s mercy, how can others not be subject to God’s mercy even though they too lack the salvific grace of the sacraments?
“I am trying to learn this right now, so I guess what would help me is to know what specifically is wrong in your opinion (anyone) with Dominus Iesus? I thought it covered the doctrinal history very well, how truth doesn’t change, but our expression of it does.”
Stacy, you’re not missing anything at all. In fact, your view is even more conservative than mine.
Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman wrote a classic book called The Development of Doctrine in which he argued persuasively not just that expressions of faith change due to our expression, but that even the truth itself becomes more clearly articulated because we draw implicit inferences we didn’t see before.
Cardinal Newman constantly quoted scripture observing that “Mary [cogitated on these things] in her heart”. (That’s my Latin-Greek translation, and Pope Benedict XVI agrees with my translation most enthusiastically [we'll discuss some other time]).
Take the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This was not a doctrine in Late Antiquity. It became a doctrine as the self-understanding of we Christians developed to the point where we were bound to admit truths that followed necessarily from how we have come to understand the incarnation.
Hold your head high, Stacy, my dear friend! You didn’t say anything wrong!
Jeff: Oh Rick, you know I love ya brother,
>> Right back atcha
J: but I’m going to sound like a liberal here.
>> Naah. I don’t believe you. A conservative Catholic maybe
I assure you, I am no liberal.
>> I assure you, I believe you.
My question to you, Rick, is how we can allow the baptism in blood of the martyrs,
>> Baptism of blood has never been dogmatically defined. I personally am not prepared to grant assent of Faith to this. If the martyr were to have been justified by the desire for baptism, and then been martyred while still persevering in that initial justification, then it were possible that he or she was saved, but by the desire for baptism.
It is a solemnly defined dogma that:
“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 they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”– Cantate Domino, ex cathedra Pope Eugene IV
such as the unborn who are killed daily,
>> A great problem, indeed, but there is no dogma at all concerning the unbaptized, except that they are certainly doomed to Hell. Sorry, but there it is:
(De Baptismo , Canon V). Further, the Ecumenical Council of Vienne defined that: “All the faithful must confess only one Baptism which regenerates all the baptized, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that this Sacrament, celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is necessary for children and grown-up people alike for salvation” (Denzinger 482)
while denying that there exist some who are saved without the sacraments?
>> No one at all is saved apart from the sacraments. Unless one has been baptized, they cannot be saved. Therefore no one at all can be saved apart from the sacraments. It is also dogma (Trent Session IV) that the desire *for baptism* may suffice for *justification*, so it is possible that some catechumens may have received eternal salvation on that basis; that is, if they had died, having been justified by the desire for baptism, before baptism could be administered to them.
The Church knows of no other way at all to be saved, than this.
J: I sincerely want to know your thoughts on this Rick! It seems that if we allow that the unborn are subject to God’s mercy, how can others not be subject to God’s mercy even though they too lack the salvific grace of the sacraments?
Jeff, the difficulty here is very severe. You assert that the unborn are saved apart from baptism, and yet this directly contradicts the definition of the Church that baptism is necessary for every child.
You assert that this is not the case, but there is no solemn definition to support you.
I believe that you have adopted, to be sure, the overwhelming opinion of our time. but that does not, alas, amount to a hill of beans, if it proceeds from the sentimental conclusions of the best thinking of even the very highest ranking prelates.
This is completely irrelevant.
Does the teaching proceed from Scripture, Tradition, the Fathers, or the solemn definitions of the heaven-protected magisterium?
Or does it proceed from the best thinking of moderns- those who have presided over the most incredibly catastrophe to ever befall the human race since the institution of the New Covenant, the incredible devastation of the vineyard since the triumph of the Noulvelle Theologie?
These are hard questions.
I am glad that I have brothers and sisters who will face them with me.
Jeff: Your citation of the great Cardinal Newman is of course apt. I merely point out that His Eminence was at pains to point out that no dogma can “develop” into its opposite.
In other words, there is no development of dogma possible, that renders “no salvation outside the Church” into “salvation outside the Church”.
Such a reversal could never be a development, only a perversion, of the original dogma.
Stacy: wrt Dominus Iesus, I will say only that there exists a contradiction within it. I encourage you to read it with a pitiless and rigorous logic- read it like St. Thomas would have read it, carefully defining every term and carefully identifying every premise and conclusion.
It is embarrassing in the extreme to have to state, alas, the document contains a devastating contradiction.
Let me know if you can find it.
Stacy: A hint.
My question to Howard above:
“1. Do you believe that there exists any distinction at all between “the Church of Christ” and “the Catholic Church”?”
Read the document with this question in mind.
I wish I could respond more fully, and still plan to return to this.
Thanks Howard, Rick and Jeff!
This seems key to the confusion: (quoting from the post)
The theological work, therefore, is in explaining the connections between Christ, the Kingdom of God, and the Church. From revelation it is known that these three terms cannot be separated without distorting the meaning of any of them; Christ cannot be separated from the Church or the Kingdom of God and neither can those be separated from each other. [35] The Kingdom of God even includes the work outside visible boundaries. [36] A warning is given also against the errors also of a one-sided accentuation on any of the three terms.
Besides other Christian churches, theological reflection of other religions is also encouraged, within the same boundaries, in Dominus Iesus. [37] However, it is again critically held that there is no salvation outside the Church, but there is a real possibility of salvation for all mankind. It also must be carefully heeded that other religions also contain errors which are obstacles to salvation, and so a guard against indifference and relativism must remain in every prudence consideration of other religions. [38]
The phrase “real possibility” seems key, and to my understanding it means that we don’t deny that there is no salvation outside the Church, but we also don’t know what it means to be outside the Church. Howard touched on that too, I think.
To say that we know who is saved and who is not is the sin of presumption. Christians are a people of faith, hope, and prayer.
That’s why I have explained to other parents who lost children to miscarriage and who struggled with the opinion of limbo, that they need not feel hopeless. Wherever those babies go, God is good. That’s all we really need to know. God is good.
Jeff,
“…but that even the truth itself becomes more clearly articulated because we draw implicit inferences we didn’t see before…”
I have struggled with this for three semesters now, and this is what my professor keeps repeating to me. It is starting to make sense. I do like how Rick holds to the literal meaning of words too. It seems we need both, but where are the distinctions made?
When I started my studies I only wanted to make up for lost time, learn about the teaching, I didn’t think there was anything new to add to theology. It’s clear to me now, Dominus Iesus makes it clear, that there are areas – defined areas – where theologians are still trying to put truths into words. It’s good to at least know what those areas are, and to know that it is not a matter of coming up with new truths (which is impossible) but figuring out how to communicate it.
Like you said about the Immaculate Conception. That’s what St. Thomas did too, isn’t it? He drew from what had already been articulated, thus the constant appeal to authority in the “On the contrary” part. But he also added to the explanation. Is this making any sense? I’m typing fast. Sorry.
I hope diving in quickly isn’t making things more confused. Oh! comboxes!
Rick,
St. Thomas did allow for invisible sanctification.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2
I like what you said about reading with the logical rigor he used, but could you just tell me what are the contradictions you see in Dominus Iesus? I don’t ask to argue back, but to understand what you mean.
Is it in the definitions of the relationship between Christ, the Church and the Kingdom of God? I admit, that has me confused.
Rick, I found this at Catholic Answers website:
The conversion of Cornelius’s household appears to be a case of baptism of desire in Scripture. In this case we know that Cornelius and his household had not yet been water baptized (for after the experience Peter orders that they go on to be water baptized; Acts 10:47-48).
While still in their pre-baptized condition, they hear the gospel from Peter (10:34-43), and as they respond to it the Holy Spirit descends upon them and enables them to speak in tongues (10:44-46). This proves to Peter that they are acceptable to God and do not have to become Jews in order to become Christians.
Since the reception of the Holy Spirit is one of the blessings of salvation and is associated with baptism, it appears that they were placed in a state of grace by their response to the gospel and filled with the Holy Spirit even though they did not yet have water baptism. They thus would seem to be saved by baptism of desire, God allowing them to share in the blessings of salvation that are normally associated with baptism (Acts 2:38) even before the reception of the sacrament. Peter is quick to insist, however, that they go on to receive the sacrament that their desire for Christ has already initiated.
Another possible example of baptism by desire is the thief on the cross. In his case we do not know that he was not baptized (by this time thousands of people in the area had been) and he likely died in the transitional period in history before baptism was mandatory for salvation.
Stacy said, “It’s good to at least know what those areas are, and to know that it is not a matter of coming up with new truths (which is impossible) but figuring out how to communicate it.”
Is not this the case of Eugene IV that Rick presents:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Rick, I go waaay back to this from you.
“But that salvation is entirely entrusted to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Outside of Her, there is no salvation at all.
Once this truth is recovered- once our sophisticated theologians can once again proclaim it without feeling the need to attach qualifiers- then it will be morning.”
My point in bringing up “Catholic Church” as opposed to “Christ’s Church” is to point out a conceptual difference. Your statement above seems to me to be in line with secular opinion of the Church – that it is only one lobby group among many. Man has the final say.
When we think in terms of Christ’s Church (the one and the same) I do not believe we can eliminate His ability to inject or proclaim or act upon, it is his to do as he wishes. If “sophisticated theologians”, which must include B16, recognize in Christ that he has withheld for himself salvation at His will, I think it should be taken seriously.
Rick, I’m curious what you take the following to mean.
Lumen Gentium 16
“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.”
It is duly noted that the phrase “can attain to salvation” is used.
Also, I agree with you on the state of the Church in the modern world.
I am sympathetic to Noulvelle Theologie though. I know there are unsafe zones, especially von Balthasar’s speculative work. But there is some good solid theology in that school. De LuBac’s The Drama of Atheist Humanism is a prophetic masterpiece in my opinion. One must separate the wheat from the chaff.
test- I just lost my whole response!
Sigh.
Dear friends, I will try and take your points in order.
@Stacy:
The principle of non-contradiction is violated in DI #17, where I am asked to affirm that the Church of Christ both is, and is not, the Catholic Church, at one and the same time.
This is, I am very sorry to have to say, perhaps the greatest embarrassment in the history of the CDF, and will have to be corrected.
No one can be asked to believe in what is a demonstrable violation of the foundational principle of Reason itself.
Your instructors seem to have almost persuaded you that some great mystical understanding is present in this “Nouvelle” understanding of the Church.
Perhaps, then, they might be able to present this in a form which does not violate the principle of Non-Contradiction?
After all, the Catholic Church was quite able to do this when the Arians raised the same objection against the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
I warmly invite you to insist that your teachers resolve, and not simply wave their hands in the general direction of, this contradiction.
As to Aquinas’ citation, it exactly matches the dogmatic teaching of Trent Session IV, which I have already treated above.
It is dogma, not opinion, that the desire *for baptism* can *justify* a man.
It seems to me to be quite likely that this initial justification suffices for salvation if the justified perseveres in that state until death (which of course would entail both persevering in grace *and* receiving the sacrament of baptism unless prevented, inculpably.
As to the fate of unbaptized infants, the theological opinion of limbo satisfies the difficult requirements of our Holy Faith. On the one hand, it is dogmatically certain- much more certain than two plus two equals four- that no child who dies apart from baptism can enter heaven, since no remission opt Adam’s sin is possible apart from baptism or the desire for it.
On the other, limbo allows us to recognize that God’s mercy will provide these unbaptized with an eternal state of natural happiness even beyond our ability to imagine.
@Howard: If you mean to suggest that Cornelius and his household were justified *before* baptism, then I should wish to urge you to rethink this. Such a notion would be a material heresy, and it certainly does not represent that Faith of the Fathers and the Councils.
Augustine addresses just this episode, in his first letter to Simplicianus:
“For the catechumens do not lack faith. Or Cornelius, did he not believe in God when his almsdeeds and prayers proved him worthy to have an angel sent to him. Yet in no way would he have done these things unless he first believed, and in no way would he have believed unless he was called by admonitions, either secret, seen only of the mind, or open, manifest through the senses of the body. But the grace of faith in some is such that *****it is insufficient for obtaining the kingdom of heaven, as in the catechumens and in Cornelius himself before he was incorporated into the Church by receiving the sacraments***”
@Jeff:
I believe God provides the means for every soul to attain salvation. There is no question that He might, *possibly* intervene, even in the case of a dying soul, to provide the soul with an infused knowledge of baptism. It is even possible that some have actually been saved in this way, I suppose.
But we have *no evidence whatsoever*, none at all, that any soul has ever been saved in this manner.
God has never told us He will save souls in this manner.
The Church has never received a Gospel that includes a possibility of being saved in this manner.
It is as if one where to argue that, since God is infinitely powerful and wills the salvation of all men of good will, that he might intervene to save those who through no fault of their own did not know of Noah or the necessity of the Ark for salvation.
Well.
On the one hand, it is certainly possible that God could have chosen to do this.
On the other hand, it is utterly certain that he did not choose to do this.
Therefore, my suggestion is that it were uncharitable in the extreme to mewl about the possibilities.
The charitable man will do anything at all it takes to get them aboard the Ark.
Rick, you are making me work!
“But the grace of faith in some is such that *****it is insufficient for obtaining the kingdom of heaven, as in the catechumens and in Cornelius himself before he was incorporated into the Church by receiving the sacraments***””
What are the missing words?
Sacraments plural?
We are not talking about faith alone but actual baptism as in:
ACTS 15
And the voice answered again from heaven: What God has made clean, do not call common. 10 And this was done three times. And all were taken up again into heaven. 11 And behold, immediately there were three men come to the house wherein I was, sent to me from Caesarea. 12 And the Spirit said to me that I should go with them, nothing doubting. And these six brethren went with me also: and we entered into the man’s house. 13 And he told us how he had seen an angel in his house, standing and saying to him: Send to Joppe and call hither Simon, who is surnamed Peter, 14 who shall speak to you words whereby you shall be saved, and all your house. 15 And when I had begun to speak, the Holy Ghost fell upon them, as upon us also in the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said: John indeed baptized with water but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 17 If then God gave them the same grace as to us also who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ: who was I, that could withstand God? 18 Having heard these things, they held their peace and glorified God, saying: God then has also to the Gentiles given repentance, unto life.
Correction, ACTS 11
St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists
That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, “Today shall you be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23:43 On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power, even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, “With the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Romans 10:10 But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment. For much more in the case of Cornelius and his friends, than in the case of that robber, might it seem superfluous that they should also be baptized with water, seeing that in them the gift of the Holy Spirit, which, according to the testimony of holy Scripture, was received by other men only after baptism, had made itself manifest by every unmistakable sign appropriate to those times when they spoke with tongues. Yet they were baptized, and for this action we have the authority of an apostle as the warrant.
The rest praises water baptism.
H: Rick, you are making me work!
>> It is necessary, always, to seek out and hold fast to the Catholic Faith, apart from which no one at all can be saved.
H: “But the grace of faith in some is such that *****it is insufficient for obtaining the kingdom of heaven, as in the catechumens and in Cornelius himself before he was incorporated into the Church by receiving the sacraments***””
What are the missing words?
Sacraments plural?
>> The citation is accurate. There are no missing words. I would rather die than falsely cut off the words of Scripture, of the Fathers, of the Doctors, of the Councils, of the Popes, in order to wrest them and twist them to attempt to make a point that is contrary to the Catholic Faith, apart from which no one at all can be saved.
If you wish to verify the accuracy and appropriateness of my citation of St. Augustine, you might simply paste the entire citation into google, and will be able thereby to obtain the broader context, and will be able to verify that my words above are true.
H: We are not talking about faith alone but actual baptism as in:
>> I am afraid that the careful reader will note that you have neglected- I sincerely pray by oversight only- to include the highly relevant portions of Scripture in Acts 10. I will supply what is lacking, at the end of your citation.
H: 15 And when I had begun to speak, the Holy Ghost fell upon them, as upon us also in the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said: John indeed baptized with water but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 17 If then God gave them the same grace as to us also who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ: who was I, that could withstand God? 18 Having heard these things, they held their peace and glorified God, saying: God then has also to the Gentiles given repentance, unto life.
>> The impression might be given, by this selected quote, that Peter recognized that this “baptism of the Holy Ghost” sufficed for salvation, that Cornelius and his household were saved as soon as the Holy Ghost fell upon them and they started speaking in tongues.
This would be a monstrously false and heretical conclusion to draw.
It is in fact a typical technique of certain vicious Protestant and evangelical heretics who deny the sacrament of baptism altogether, to attempt to wrest this passage to such an end.
Let us now immediately remove any such false and heretical impression, by noticing that the previous passage of relevant Scripture demolishes any such heretical notion of Cornelius having been saved apart from the sacrament of baptism:
ACTS 10
10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Now.
Why should Peter have commanded them to be baptized, if they were already baptized?
Obviously, because they had not been baptized.
The pouring out of the Spirit on these Gentiles was a sign, that salvation would come to the Gentiles, not a substitute for the sacrament of baptism, as we obviously see from the fact that………***they were immediately baptized****!
H: That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, “Today shall you be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23:43
>> This argument applies to the period before the promulgation of the Gospel.
H: On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power, even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, “With the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Romans 10:10 But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment.
>> Again, the veil of the Temple had not been rent when Christ saved St. Dismas.
H: For much more in the case of Cornelius and his friends, than in the case of that robber, might it seem superfluous that they should also be baptized with water, seeing that in them the gift of the Holy Spirit, which, according to the testimony of holy Scripture, was received by other men only after baptism, had made itself manifest by every unmistakable sign appropriate to those times when they spoke with tongues. Yet they were baptized, and for this action we have the authority of an apostle as the warrant.
>> Which seems to demolish any claim, entirely, that Cornelius was baptized before Peter commanded him to be baptized, as above.
Rick, making me work was meant as a compliment to you not a preference for laziness.
I would prefer that you hold back on the heretical pronouncements until you can convince me that you are not making a heretical claim. You have not commented on the Catechism references that I have given. Would you be clear and state that you believe that the Catechism contains the heresy that you see and that the current and the past Pope have knowingly taught this? Or is it just that I have misinterpreted the Catechism?
“The citation is accurate. There are no missing words. I would rather die than falsely cut off the words of Scripture”
My reference to missing words was purely technical, meaning what is the context, why the asterisks? Your Google trick did bring up a translation of Augustine but not your exact one. The Kingdom of Heaven to me means after death and judgment – not entering the Church only. Regarding the question about sacraments plural – is this saying that it is necessary to receive all of the sacraments in order to attain heaven. Is marriage and ordination required?
Since you do present strong argument, I am going to carefully read what you have written and respond.
Hello Howard!
H: Rick, making me work was meant as a compliment to you not a preference for laziness.
>> My response to you was meant to situate the proper purpose of our hard work together.
H: I would prefer that you hold back on the heretical pronouncements until you can convince me that you are not making a heretical claim.
>> God forbid. It is heretical to claim that there is any salvation at all outside the Catholic Church. I have already provided a dogmatic definition, an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium, to that effect.
I will do so again, here:
“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… 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 they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441 AD)
May I solemnly assure you that it is completely certain that anyone who denies a syllable of the above is an heretic.
Indeed, anyone who believes the above in *any sense at all contrary to the sense in which the Church believed it when first formulated* is an heretic.
Do you believe this, or not, Howard?
I do.
Is it your intention to claim that this makes me an heretic?
How utterly absurd would such a ridiculous assertion be, wouldn’t it?
It were ridiculous in the extreme to suggest that a catholic is an heretic for believing the solemn definition of a dogmatic Council, defining a dogma of the Faith.
But the difficulty you are having here, Howard, is very useful, since it serves to bring into clear review the awful disaster which has befallen us since the council.
We apparently can no longer simply, clearly, and without the slightest hesitation, agree, that:
“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… 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 they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441 AD)
Or can we?
If you d
You have not commented on the Catechism references that I have given. Would you be clear and state that you believe that the Catechism contains the heresy that you see and that the current and the past Pope have knowingly taught this? Or is it just that I have misinterpreted the Catechism?
“The citation is accurate. There are no missing words. I would rather die than falsely cut off the words of Scripture”
My reference to missing words was purely technical, meaning what is the context, why the asterisks? Your Google trick did bring up a translation of Augustine but not your exact one. The Kingdom of Heaven to me means after death and judgment – not entering the Church only. Regarding the question about sacraments plural – is this saying that it is necessary to receive all of the sacraments in order to attain heaven. Is marriage and ordination required?
Since you do present strong argument, I am going to carefully read what you have written and respond.
CONTINUED:
H: You have not commented on the Catechism references that I have given. Would you be clear and state that you believe that the Catechism contains the heresy that you see and that the current and the past Pope have knowingly taught this?
>> I am sorry, I have already stated that the Council can be interpreted- given sufficient mental gymnastics- in accordance with the Dogma.
If there is any particular passage of the Catechism you think cannot be, please post it, and tell me exactly why you think it contradicts a solemn defined dogma of the Faith.
If it does, then clearly the catechism, of inferior dogmatic authority, would be in error.
Or else your insistence that it contradicts the Dogma, would be in error.
What is absolutely certain, is that no catechism whatsoever has the slightest power at all to reverse a solemnly defined dogma of the extraordinary magisterium.
H: My reference to missing words was purely technical, meaning what is the context, why the asterisks?
>> Ahh, I see. The context is precisely the point at issue: baptism’s necessity for salvation. The asterisks were merely for emphasis- to show you that Augustine recognized that Cornelius’ experience of the Holy Ghost was *not* sufficient for justification, that he had to be baptized just like anyone else.
H: Your Google trick did bring up a translation of Augustine but not your exact one.
>> I am extremely confident the point will be the same.
H:The Kingdom of Heaven to me means after death and judgment – not entering the Church only.
>> This cannot be true, since Christ Himself teaches us otherwise:
[6] But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [7] And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Mt 10:7
[14] And after that John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, [15] And saying: The time is accomplished, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel. Mk 1:15
So, brother, it appears that someone has been teaching you a very strange gospel, one never received from the apostles.
May I ask you who it is that has taught you that the Kingdom of God is not on earth, and that it is not the Catholic Church?
Whosoever this might be must be reported to the CDF before he or she poisons the minds of others with similar heresy.
H: Regarding the question about sacraments plural – is this saying that it is necessary to receive all of the sacraments in order to attain heaven. Is marriage and ordination required?
Since you do present strong argument, I am going to carefully read what you have written and respond.
>> Oh, I think the context is rather clear. Augustine is saying that the sacraments are necessary- the economy of salvation involves the sacraments. He is obviously not implying that the sacraments of Orders, or matrimony, or extreme unction, are necessary for salvation in themselves.
One thing at a time my friend.
I am not going to state your conclusions for you. I have asked you to do that and you seem to be wriggling out of this one – do you or do you not, say that Pope Benedict XVI is knowingly teaching heresy via the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
LOL! Howard, my friend. I have posted dozens of times on this thread- what possible basis have I ever given you to lodge such a ridiculous question?
I do claim that there is a terrible botch- a monumental error of logic- in a CDF instruction.
Heresy?
Ridiculous.
The note of pertinacity is required for heresy.
For example, you yourself have found it extraordinarily difficult to simply lend your wholehearted assent to this dogmatic definition- this exercise of the charism of infallibility- of the Catholic Church:
““The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… 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 they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441 AD)”
Now.
I do not accuse you of heresy, even though it is apparent that you have great difficulty accepting this dogmatic definition.
Let us explore, together, why it is that you should find it so difficult to give the assent of faith to this definition.
Do you believe that Pope Benedict has taught- that is, has bound us, using his power as chief pastor and shepherd of the faithful- to something in contradiction to it?
Please tell me what that might be.
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.
I can only assume I am correct from your blizzard of words that you consider this not to be heresy but only is in error, and is being understood and taught by the Pope as stated – and he is in error when he teaches this. Is this correct?
It is possible to understand this in accordance with the dogma; that is, these may achieve eternal salvation through baptism, or the desire for it.
There is certainly no other means of salvation, since:
““The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… 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 they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441 AD)”
Or do you mean to suggest that some means of salvation apart from the catholic Church, is what is in view in the Catechism’s excerpt?
@Howard: If you mean to suggest that Cornelius and his household were justified *before* baptism, then I should wish to urge you to rethink this. Such a notion would be a material heresy, and it certainly does not represent that Faith of the Fathers and the Councils.
Rick, this is an answer you gave previously. Do you mean here that it is only Cornelius that you dispute has been justified or do you mean that no one can be justified before water baptism. Please don’t repeat Eugene IV again.
If the later how does that compare with your last answer, “It is possible to understand this in accordance with the dogma; that is, these may achieve eternal salvation through baptism, or the desire for it”.
Do you mean here that it is possible to understand it incorrectly?
.
Thanks Howard, I am beginning to think we are not making progress now but I will try once more to move this forward.
H: Do you mean here that it is only Cornelius that you dispute has been justified or do you mean that no one can be justified before water baptism.
>> What is “water baptism”, Howard? Do you mean “baptism of water and the Spirit”, as in the sacrament of the Catholic Church? There is not other form of baptism which justifies the sinner. There is only the sacrament of baptism, or the desire for it, which can justify the sinner.
This is a dogmatic definition of the Council of Trent, Sixth Session, On Justification.
Do you disagree with this, or consider it heretical to believe this dogmatic definition?
I supply the actual definition here:
CHAPTER IV.
“By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, *****since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God****.” (emphasis added)
Do you believe this, Howard? Or do you believe it is now no longer necessary to be baptized, or to desire baptism; that the translation from child of Adam to adopted child of God, can now be accomplished in some other way?
H: Please don’t repeat Eugene IV again.
>> Why does this definition of our Holy Faith disturb you so?
H: If the later how does that compare with your last answer, “It is possible to understand this in accordance with the dogma; that is, these may achieve eternal salvation through baptism, or the desire for it”.
Do you mean here that it is possible to understand it incorrectly?
>> Let me be as clear as possible.
There is no possibility of justification absent baptism, or the desire for it, since the promulgation of the Gospel.
This is a defined dogma of our Faith.
You can read it, above.
Do you agree with this?
Or do you believe it has now been changed, and replaced with something else?
Too convoluted for me. Thanks.
Rick,
You can ignore this if I’m just asking something that requires a lot of work and explanation, but, I’ve read the encyclicals and I’m still trying to understand.
“There is no possibility of justification absent baptism, or the desire for it, since the promulgation of the Gospel. This is a defined dogma of our Faith.”
That isn’t what St. Thomas taught. That isn’t what the Second Vatican Council taught. It isn’t what the Catechism teaches, or the decrees from the Holy Office. The Catechism still affirms that “all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is His Body.” Even the reading from Acts 4: “There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved.”
Returning to Lumen Gentium the reminder is that it is necessary to keep these two truths together: 1) There is a real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind, and 2) the Church is necessary for this salvation.
That isn’t in contradiction with earlier councils.
There is a possibility for salvation for any man. Possibility. In ways we don’t know. Again, presumption is not hope. We are a people of hope.
This doesn’t deny that the Church is necessary, but that she absolutely is, which means Christ is the only means of salvation.
Hi Stacy-
No it is not at all difficult, I am very grateful for your forthright honesty.
Here is the problem.
It is a defined dogma of a solemn ecumenical Council accepted by a Pope, that:
“….this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”
You explicitly claim that St. Thomas Aquinas, the Second Vatican Council, the Catechism, and decrees from the Holy Office, do not teach what this solemn definition of the extraordinary magisterium teaches.
This was precisely my point in beginning this examination, was to determine whether you actually believe that the Council, the Catechism, and the Holy Office, have taught in contradiction to the defined dogmas of our Faith.
You now affirm that you believe this.
Perhaps now you will begin to understand the disaster which has befallen us.
I will pray very much for the day when such an appalling thing could never so much as be imagined.
May God be with you.
Rick,
The Council of Trent quote includes the words “or the desire thereof.”
“And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when you shall come into your kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to you: This day you shall be with me in paradise.” Luke 23:43
Desire thereof?
I see in your comments to Howard that you note the wording. I guess I don’t see what you find contradictory? I’d like to know though, but you’re going to have to spell it out for me.
Hi Stacy:
I have given this some thought.
It is not time to take this further.
Everything important has already been posted here.
I think you should have some more time to compare the approach I take with the approach your teachers take.
I will leave you with one admonition:
Is anyone- that means *anyone at all*- should ever tell you that a solemn definition of the extraordinary magisterium of the Catholic Chuch is subject to reversal by:
1. St. Thomas Aquinas
2. The Catechism
3. Any document of Vatican Two ( a Council which has explicitly *not* exercised the supreme magisterium)
4. Any document of any curial dicastery including the CDF…..
Please be absolutely assured that whoever told you this is wrong, and if they told you this while in possession of sufficient knowledge to understand the degrees of magisterial authority, is an heretic.
Stacy, if think part of the problem is that Rick does not recognize the exact point in time at which water baptism (not Johns’s) was instituted as being until after the crucifixion and is not saying that this has been a debate among theologians. Rick has obviously studied this problem in detail but as with the Pius X people I have run across, you only get a very strong opinionated view of their position (sometimes patronizingly) and will not give you the larger balanced picture. It becomes not a learning opportunity where you can make judgments for yourself, but an opportunity with another motive.
Howard:
What Rick DeLano believes is a matter of complete indifference.
What the sacred, heaven-protected magsterium of the catholic Church has *defined*, is a matter of the most grave imaginable consequence.
I dop not understand why it is that you have, on at least three separate occasions, failed to read and understand the following words.
These are not my words.
They are the words of the Solemn Ecumenical Council of Trent, words defining a dogma of our faith.
I invite you to believe them:
“….this translation, *****since the promulgation of the Gospel*****, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”– Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter IV, “On Justification”
I have no opinion on questions which have been defined, Howard.
On questions which have been defined, I have the assurance of Faith.
I would rather die than treat a dogma as if it were subject to my or anyone else’s opinion.
Rick, your argument is not with me, it is apparently with the Church. Whether you succeed or fail to get me to believe your position is really irrelevant isn’t it?
Have great day, Howard. Thanks for your input.
I am sure it will all work out.