Ecumenism and Tough Love
Catholic Free Press
Ecumenism is a word that causes some uneasiness, a concern that Catholic doctrine will be expected to give in to modernist tendencies and evolve with the times. I recently read the declaration Dominus Iesus written by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church to try to understand this word better. The title means “Jesus is Lord” and the declaration wasn’t written to solve ecumenical problems, but to “set forth again the doctrine of the Catholic faith in these areas.” It says that out of love for all people, the faithful are exhorted all the more to proclaim with the Church that Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life.”
I found myself thinking about parents and tough love. If maturing children turn away from the family and go on their own path, the pain for the parents is probably something like the intense pain Christ feels for division among Christians. Just like the family is supposed to be united, so is the Body of Christ.
Dominus Iesus also says it is necessary to keep two truths together: 1) In Christ, there is a real possibility of salvation for all mankind, thus 2) the Church is necessary for salvation. By the grace of Christ, even those not in full communion may have a relationship with the Church. The Second Vatican Council did not articulate exactly how this may be, but explained that God achieves this unity “in ways known to himself.”
Isn’t that what parents tell wayward children? “Child, there’s always a possibility for you to be fully united us. We are your family and desire that so much, but because we love you, we cannot let you do whatever you want to do if it is harmful for you and others.” If a teenager has a drinking problem, the parents don’t buy him alcohol to evolve with the times. No, they firmly instruct – as an act of love.
And like wayward children, it’s other Evangelical structures who have no desire to be in communion with the Church, not the Holy Mother Church who has no desire to be united with them. That is a striking realization. The Catholic Church is the only church actively trying to draw the others in. Christians are a people of hope and faith, and as any parent who’s shed anguished tears knows, even without all the answers we still need to stand firm, pray, and speak the truth in love. God’s time, God’s way.
Category: Catholic Free Press, Featured, Modernism, Parenting
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
“Dominus Iesus also says it is necessary to keep two truths together: 1) In Christ, there is a real possibility of salvation for all mankind, thus 2) the Church is necessary for salvation.”
>>The conclusion does not, logically, follow from the premise.
Rather, as the Church has always taught:
1. There is no salvation but that brought by Jesus Christ, thus
2. the Church is necessary for salvation
“By the grace of Christ, even those not in full communion may have a relationship with the Church.”
>> Indeed. This is perfectly non-controversial. since it is nothing more or less than a tautology. It tells us nothing at all we didn’t know before. But it certainly creates a lovely foggy mist around things that were previously perfectly clear; to wit, that one’s relationship with the Church is either that of branch to vine, or one of branch cut off from vine.
Which latter is the authentic, universal, Scriptural, apostolic, Patristic and papal and conciliar understanding of the Faith once delivered.
Don’t get me wrong- tautologies are incredibly powerful things when one wishes to profoundly change a thing without actually saying so.
“Natural selection” is a similarly powerful tautology:
1. What is selected for? That which survives.
2. What survives? That which is selected for.
Yes, very big things can come from very small tautologies……
“The Second Vatican Council did not articulate exactly how this may be, but explained that God achieves this unity “in ways known to himself.”
>> Oh my. Just exactly so.
The Truth is that one either dies united to the Catholic Church (and while there are infinities of possible ways known only to God, there is exactly one way which God has chosen to make known to us)….
Or else one cannot be saved.
Of course this has the disadvantage of being non-tautological.
“The Catholic Church is the only church actively trying to draw the others in.”
Please explain this.
Rick, you’ve said this before and I know you have a point of view and I assume you have investigated deeply into writings. What is missing for us is a statement and rebuttal of the Church’s teaching on this matter, not a presentation of your understanding. We look to the Church for guidance and if you have found fault with the thinking that produced what you consider too loose an interpretation of salvation, I would like to read in more detail the reasoning that you disagree with.
The problem, Howard, is not that the Church’s teaching is reversed by Vatican II.
It is explicitly claimed that no such reversal of teaching exists, or was intended to exist, in the conciliar texts.’
The problem exists precisely in the ambiguity of the texts, in comparison with earlier, unquestionably dogmatic formulations of earlier, unquestionably valid councils and papal definitions.
It is the ambiguity which has led to such appalling notions as the idea that the dogmatic formulation ((de Fide definita!) “no salvation outside the Church” can somehow be “interpreted”, by means of an “hermeneutic of reform in continuity” of the “one subject-Church” to mean:
1. “God can save anyone through ways we do not know” (this part is a tautology, perfectly non-controversial because no one would ever be so daft as to suggest He somehow couldn’t) *therefore*;
2. it is more important to dialogue than to persuade, to discuss than to convert.”
Now #2 above will be found in no text of any council, since it is a direct repudiation of the actual mission of the Catholic Church, but it is impossible not to notice that in practice, this second point has become “orthopraxis” for the Catholic Church’s missionary activity (more precisely, Her collapse in missionary activity) since the Council.
In any case where a novelty is introduced (on any grounds whatever), and the result of its application in practice is as disastrous as the collapse in the Church’s missionary activity, and general situation in the world has been disastrous in the post-cinsiliar era…..
The time has come to listen to St. Paul, and to St. Vincent of Lerins, who assure us that in all such situations the Catholic is to hold fast to Tradition, to what unquestionably comes to us from Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, as authoritatively taught with the note of infallibility by the exercise of the ordinary and supreme magisterium- the heaven-protected teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.
The recent, extraordinary exchange of public essays on these questions by representatives of the Society of St. Pius X, and representatives of the Curia involved in the direct discussions with the SSPX, outlines these questions with theological precision.
Here is an excellent outline of the issue from the standpoint of the SSPX. It outlines the issue at stake with laser-like precision:
http://www.dici.org/en/news/debate-about-vatican-ii-fr-gleize-responds-to-msgr-ocariz/
It is not a polemic, it is a precise challenge to the “hermeneutic of reform in continuity of the one subject-Church” which has essentially been adopted over the last two pontificates especially, as the actual, binding meaning of Vatican II.
There are very real and challenging issues involved here, since, as St. Vincent of Lerins, speaking with all of his extraordinary authority as a Father of the Church who is credited, in his “Commonitorium”, with the greatest expression in antiquity of this principle of an *object of Faith* (the Faith once delivered) in distinction to a “reform in continuity” of a “one subject-Church”.
“………it follows necessarily that all the faithful of all ages, all the saints, the chaste, the continent, the virgins, all the clergy, Deacons and Priests, so many thousands of Confessors, so vast an army of martyrs, such multitudes of cities and of peoples, so many islands, provinces, kings, tribes, kingdoms, nations, in a word, almost the whole earth, incorporated in Christ the Head, through the Catholic faith, have been ignorant for so long a tract of time, have been mistaken, have blasphemed, have not known what to believe, what to confess.”
Rick, I forgot that after our last discussions it occurred to me that you may be an SSPX member (if that is what you call it). I have had other personal discussions that were more like angry gripe sessions and a similar discussion which introduced me to collegiality as a formulated concept. I am on a Pastoral Council but associated with a Tridintine rite parish and can at least view an aspect of collegiality from that perspective. As a new Catholic and not an academic, my interest in intra-Church debates is eclipsed by still trying to grow in basic Catholic teachings (yes I know this subject is basic, but not all subjects are contentious). The points of contention between SSPX, the Orthodox (I have one as a friend, not easy), Jews, and the reformers and the Church are long standing and can be very complicated.
My experiences with missionaries is that Catholics have been out-missionaried by Protestants anyway.
To my mind the authority of the Church remains with the current Pope and Bishops. Any attempt to override that authority or put doubts in the mind of the laity without including a disclaimer that informs a person that these issues are contentious, would I believe, tend to produce a climate suitable for a new reformation.
We have gone through a horrendous century (the 20th). I can understand any “ambiguity of the texts” that you see in the context of that century – I lived more than half of it. Life became ambiguous as we lost our Theism. Not to say Churchmen did this precisely, but as men growing up in a culture that was changing, how many had the ability to detach and observe and apply a non-involved viewpoint.
“Rick, I forgot that after our last discussions it occurred to me that you may be an SSPX member (if that is what you call it).”
>> I am not a member of the SSPX and I have never assisted at an SSPX Mass. I am not very popular among SSPX supporters, which fact would be immediately evident, were it not for the propensity of one of the major of these to memory hole my posts after banning my participation. You do not have me figured out yet, and you do not understand the points at issue here.
The points at issue have nothing whatever to do with the authority of the Church’s magisterium.
They have to do with the obligations to which a Catholic is held, in conscience, to render the assent of Faith to dogma, and the assent of will and intellect to doctrine, in the *exact and specific anomalous case* where teachings of Vatican II can be employed to reverse, in practice, definitions of a higher magisterial authority.
There can be nothing more important for the recovery of the Church’s present, disastrous situation in the world, than the clear and honest determination of what it is we must believe in order to be saved.
We are confused, disoriented, inconsistent, and what is even worse, we ourselves can be easily demonstrated to have great difficulty in defending our own Faith, in the face of determined atheist assault (if you have not witnessed the truly disastrous blunder of one of the better prelates, Cardinal Pell, in his handling of Richard Dawkins’ devastating challenge on original sin, then on the one hand you are very lucky and on the other hand you simply must watch it, as incredibly demoralizing as it admittedly is, in order to see why we simply cannot truly recover, so long as we proceed along these lines).
The Catholic has a right- a canonical right- to know what it is he must believe to be saved, and to know that this is in complete *logical* consistency with what the Church has unquestionably taught *at a higher level of authority* (dogmatic solemn definition) than *anything* which was taught by the “pastoral Council.”
While the SSPX is very very wrong on several very important things, they are nonetheless completely right in raising the question- just what *is* the magisterium? Is it a collection of mRome?
Or is it the perennial, consistent, always-and-everywhere believed deposit of Faith, against which it can never be permissible to innovate?
“The points at issue have nothing whatever to do with the authority of the Church’s magisterium. They have to do with the obligations to which a Catholic is held, in conscience, to render the assent of Faith to dogma”
Teaching authority is obviously what I was referring to. You, Rick come along and seemingly disagree with the CCC on being saved. I think I have at least that much figured out. Now am I to believe that I cannot rely on the CCC for answers? That I must determine the validity of every answer my self? In order to question you must have a reason to doubt. I don’t find that taking a statement of a CCC sentence and evaluating it in detail based on your own understanding without at least relating the reasoning in detail that went in to that decision, to be very informative. Generalizations about ambiguity is not enough.
I don’t know if it is typical but our Pastoral Council has only to do with fundraising, building management and expansion, parish activities and the like. Our priest deals with all faith issues and would come down hard on anyone misrepresenting the Church.
“You, Rick come along and seemingly disagree with the CCC on being saved. I think I have at least that much figured out.”
>> Really? That is amazing, that you have figured that much out, since I haven’t.
What, exactly, is the teaching of the Catechism with which you have figured out that I disagree?
Just so I can know what you know……
“Now am I to believe that I cannot rely on the CCC for answers?”
In every single respect in which you understand the Catechism to mean “the Faith once delivered” or “authoritative and binding doctrine”, you certainly can.
If you mean to suggest that I must oppose the death penalty because the Catechism has been interpreted by some as binding me in such a way, then we have exactly the problem I have carefully outlined for you above, and concerning which a great and historic debate in the Church is underway, whether you would prefer it to be or not.
“That I must determine the validity of every answer my self?”
>> It is exactly wrong to suggest you can determine the validity of every answer for yourself. This is why the question is being addressed to the magisterium, and by many.
If it is your intention to suggest that I am bound by each answer in the Catechism, to assent of Faith or of will, then may I cordially decline to agree with you, and in fact assure you with complete certainty that you are wrong about that.
“In order to question you must have a reason to doubt. ”
>> Exactly. Either the formulation is ambiguous, or a contradiction exists between a given answer in the Catechism, and a earlier, higher-level binding definition or certain teaching of the magisterium.
This is why theologians will sit down and write a “dubium” (“doubt” or “question”) and submit it to the CDF.
In some, extraordinary circumstances, such as in the present disaster engulfing the Church, the Pope Himself will become directly involved in the examination of these questions, as He is at this very moment.
” I don’t find that taking a statement of a CCC sentence and evaluating it in detail based on your own understanding without at least relating the reasoning in detail that went in to that decision, to be very informative. Generalizations about ambiguity is not enough.”
>> With all due respect, HOward, I have laid the question out in very great specificity, and on the off chance you were honestly interested even directly linked you to the actual issue- the issue which is probably the most significant of our time- the proper hermeneutic of interpretation of Vatican II.
It is really not in my power to intervene directly concerning your inability or unwillingness to address this issue.
But I have certainly very carefully defined it.
“Our priest deals with all faith issues and would come down hard on anyone misrepresenting the Church.”
Great. What if somebody says that the creation account is a myth, and that Adam and Eve were not actual historical persons?
Would he come down hard on that?
If so, he had better come down hard on Cardinal Pell, who said precisely this on a televised debate in front of millions.
That, Howard, is a problem.
For Catholics.
Hello Rick,
If I am understanding the link you put in your previous comment, the issue is not that Vatican II has altered doctrine by contradicting previous teachings but has changed the orientation from object-subject to subject-object. For example, “salvation is in the church” is reoriented to “the church is saved” which is the taughtaoulgy you refered to?
If my understanding is correct, then the practical issue you bring up about the ambiguity of what is necessary for salvation comes into play. Before Vatican II, the teaching was clear and the motivation to stay in the church and do missionary work was an imperative because all those outside would not be saved. Now, the teaching could be summarized to say that those in the church are saved and that God can save any that He wills. The tautology could lead to several issues in my view. Why would a person risk life and limb to convert the heathen if God can save them. Or why tell a protestant that they are teaching heresy and cause offense if in some way unknown to me, God can save them, or why enter the church to begin with if there is someway to be saved outside the church even if it is to simply rely on the great mercy of God. Is this a correct understanding of the practical problems with the pastoral teachings of Vatican II?
Alan:
Your questions are excellent. They penetrate to the heart of the matter.
I understand the deep loyalty and desire to protect and preserve the unity of the Church on the part of many good Catholics who, alas, would prefer that the disaster now at our very gates- a literal question of the survival of the Church’s liberty in this nation- not be considered, as it nevertheless must be, in the context of the Council and its implementation.
Your questions are excellent.
I have one more.
An invincibly ignorant pagan is, nonetheless, moved by God’s grace to live an upright life, following God according to his conscience.
There is one immediate way he could be damned, and that would be if a Catholic missionary informed him that there was a Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, Who commands that “unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Our pagan is not persuaded of this.
But he is also no longer invincibly ignorant.
It seems, and correct me please if I have missed a step somewhere in here…………
It seems to me that the only thing that could endanger our pagan’s salvation would be his misfortune to encounter a missionary who might preach to him the Gospel.
Something is very wrong here.
“Rick DeLano / June 24, 2012
“According to the teachings of Vatican II, it’s possible for someone outside the Church to be save(d)”
That is a remarkable claim, since, if true, it would conclusively establish that Vatican II had taught heresy.
Please provide the exact text of the Council which you allege teaches this damnable heresy.”
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
Howard:
Still waiting for the claim in the Vatican II texts that those outside the Church can be saved.
You haven’t provided it yet.
First, you offer #1258, which is hilariously inapt, since all such persons would be *baptized*; that is, they would be *members of the Catholic Church by baptism”, which is exactly consistent with my understanding of the infallible dogma “no salvation outside the Church.
You then offer #1259, which, again, speaks to *baptism of desire*, which is an explicitly defined dogma of our Faith (Trent Session IV), and again involves those who are *incorporated into the Church by baptism*.
Lastly you offer #1260, which is a wonderful example of precisely why not everything in the Catechism is a matter of Faith (certainly no Council has ever taught that anyone who has not even a desire for baptism can nonetheless be saved by the desire for what they do not desire in the first place).
The entire paragraph is perfectly congruent with Scripture, Tradition, the Fathers, the Doctors, and the papal magisterium, right up to the very last part of the last sentence, which introduces a *novelty*; “baptism of implicit desire”, which does not bind since it has never been believed in the entire history of the Church.
The passage is saved- one hopes- by its explicit situation in the realm of “ways known only to God”, but it is highly problematic since it seems to imply that one of those means we *do* know about is baptism of implicit desire.
This is the “anonymous Christianity” of Karl Rahner, it has never been taught by any Father as something which would apply since the promulgation of the Gospel, and is certainly tight nowhere in Vatican II.
So.
While you have helpfully located a passage of the catechism which is exactly the kind of ambiguous and possibly even novel teaching which is the subject of the present discussions among theologians concerning Vatican II, you have not yet answered my challenge, which is, exactly:
“Please provide the exact text *of the Council* which you allege teaches this damnable heresy.”
Councils are authentic, heaven protected acts of the magisterium in whatever they propose as definitively belonging to Faith or morals.
Catechism do not enjoy similar protection.
May I say that I do not believe, as a matter of divine and Catholic Faith, that one is saved by anonymous Christianity, or baptism of implicit desire.
May I say that baptism of implicit desire is not taught in any text of the Council.
Thanks for helping make this matter more clear.
“What, exactly, is the teaching of the Catechism with which you have figured out that I disagree?”
“While you have helpfully located a passage of the catechism which is exactly the kind of ambiguous and possibly even novel teaching which is the subject of the present discussions”
So, does this mean what you say it means or something else?
I should have included 1257. When I read the paragraphs following this one I don’t read them as offering a substitute for the Church but a proclamation of our servitude and ignorance of that which we are desperately trying to figure out. Take the known route and evangelize and baptize because what that is what we are told to do, but we can also marvel at the power that commands us. There is also another paragraph, which I could not find, which at the end tells us that we still must evangelize.
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
1258 thru 1260 attach very specific conditions necessary for salvation, conditions that sound a lot like a description of a faithful Catholic.
You have hypothesized, but you have not shown a correlation between the thoughts of these paragraphs and the decline in missionary activity. A great study for someone.
“So, does this mean what you say it means or something else?”
Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
I do not mind- in fact I consider it a primary obligation before God in this time of devastation of the vineyard- to examine the causes of this devastation.
I generally do not mind having my honesty and integrity impugned by implication, since this typically emanates from enemies of the Church, or else from those who simply do not share my desire to acknowledge the crisis of Faith in this time, and certainly not my desire to actually compare what is being taught today to what has been believed always and everywhere and by everyone.
Something has gone very wrong, and I do not apologize for saying so, and I do not apologize for saying why.
“What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.”
St. Vincent of Lerins
“I should have included 1257.”
>>#1257 presents the ancient and apostolic and Scriptural and ,magisterial Faith of the Catholic Church.
I am glad to see that you added it.
Even if, at first, you chose to delete it.
I am happy you chose to present it.
I leave it to the honest observer to situate #1257 and #1260 side by side, and fearlessly compare them.
#1257 is ancient.
#1260 is novel.
#1257 transmits what has been infallibly defined as de Fide definita from the very beginning of the Church.
#1260 transmits something novel and highly speculative and ambiguous.
The Church of #1257 converted the Western world, and created European civilization.
The Church of #1260 is collapsing in Europe, and facing persecution in the United States.
By their fruits you shall know them.
“When I read the paragraphs following this one I don’t read them as offering a substitute for the Church but a proclamation of our servitude and ignorance of that which we are desperately trying to figure out. Take the known route and evangelize and baptize because what that is what we are told to do, but we can also marvel at the power that commands us. There is also another paragraph, which I could not find, which at the end tells us that we still must evangelize.”
>> All of this is very well for you, I suppose.
It is very bad, alas, for the souls who no longer hear the Gospel proclaimed as what it *is*- a matter of life and death, or *eternal* life and death, burn instead various invitations to dialogue, on the premise that, after all, the Truth is not know perfectly about these matters and…….
Similar bomfoggery.
“bomfoggery”
Of all the thousands of words you have used I like this one the best.
Howard:
Re: “bomfoggery”- you have excellent taste
Alas, this one thing really good I write I stole from Chris Ferrara……..thank you for giving me the opportunity to acknowledge my source.
Two things.
First, you have not yet provided any text of any ecumenical Council which supports the notion of “anonymous Christianity”, or “baptism of implicit desire”.
You have instead pointed to its (ambiguous but reasonably construed) presence in a Catechism.
Which was exactly my point in the first place- not every proposition in a Catechism is binding as a matter of Faith.
It would be good if you were to acknowledge my point, or else refute it by posting the requested passage of Vatican II that teaches baptism of implicit desire (there isn’t one).
Second, I posted what I have attempted to show is a true paradox which proceeds from the premises of salvation by invincible ignorance.
No one has addressed this, and I invite you to do so now.
Either I have made a logical error somewhere along the way in what appears below, or else something is very very wrong with the Nouvelle Theologie taught in CCC #1260.
Which is it?
“An invincibly ignorant pagan is, nonetheless, moved by God’s grace to live an upright life, following God according to his conscience.
There is one immediate way he could be damned, and that would be if a Catholic missionary informed him that there was a Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, Who commands that “unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Our pagan is not persuaded of this.
But he is also no longer invincibly ignorant.
It seems, and correct me please if I have missed a step somewhere in here…………
It seems to me that the only thing that could endanger our pagan’s salvation would be his misfortune to encounter a missionary who might preach to him the Gospel.
Something is very wrong here.”
To Rick from the bomfogger.
I was not attempting to prove any passage exists in any writing of VAT2. This quote of yours in another thread seemed to be a good example of your disagreement with the CCC. My example by your words was to answer your question in your puffed up response; “What, exactly, is the teaching of the Catechism with which you have figured out that I disagree?”
“It seems to me that the only thing that could endanger our pagan’s salvation would be his misfortune to encounter a missionary who might preach to him the Gospel.”
As I have said before, before you debunk this teaching it is necessary to understand the reasoning that caused it to be in the CCC in the first place – from the authors and proofreaders, not your supposition. I have also said before you are at odds with the Church in this matter, get your answer from Her.
Howard:
Your answer, I am afraid, is pretty much bomfoggery.
Of course I get my answer from the Church- that is precisely what is happening in Rome, at this very moment, in the historic and (my opinion) long overdue process of definitively separating the wheat from the chaff concerning the meaning and binding nature of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.
You are wrong to assert that I am at odds with the Church.
I am at odds with a bit of ambiguous novelty concerning baptism of implicit desire, and I fully expect this matter to be clarified, because it is after all the duty of the Church to clarify it, and the duty of the Catholic to hold fast to the Faith once delivered.
A disaster has befallen us, Howard.
I do not intend to be seduced by any lying novelty.
Then it seems that we must await clarification. I think in the meantime your zeal in shouting “heretic” should also await that clarification, it only breeds dissention. In your mind is it not similar to selling indulgences.
“Then it seems that we must await clarification.”
>> Yes, certainly concerning any innovation, novelty, or even possible legitimate development of doctrine taught at Vatican II, we must certainly await clarification.
No clarification of any kind, of course, is needed with respect to solemn definitions of the Faith.
These are infallible and irreformable in any way whatsoever.
“I think in the meantime your zeal in shouting “heretic” should also await that clarification,”
>> To the contrary. I expect that a bit more zeal in shouting “heretic” is exactly what is needed.
It is the sloth in murmuring bomfoggeries that seems to be the problem at this point.
“it only breeds dissension.”
>> Exactly the opposite is true. It is the bomfoggery which has created the conditions under which dissension has arisen.
It is now time for clarity- true, Catholic clarity- to restore unity.
“In your mind is it not similar to selling indulgences.”
>> I have not the slightest idea what you might be trying to suggest here. Indulgences are perfectly legitimate channels of Holy grace. Do you deny this?
Selling indulgences is the mortal sin of simony.
Do you deny this?
“I have not the slightest idea what you might be trying to suggest here. Indulgences are perfectly legitimate channels of Holy grace. Do you deny this?”
I was referring to Martin Luther.
But what has the arch-heresiarch Luther to do with this?
There is no slight ambiguity concerning the nature, extent, and demonic provenance of his heretical teaching and schismatic acts.
I ask again: do you deny that indulgences are authentic channels of God’s grace?
No? Luther did.
I ask again: Do you deny that selling indulgences is the mortal sin of simony?
No? Well that is something the heretic and schismatic Luther took with him when he set up shop on his own.
What was that about acorns again……..?
Don’t delaminate yourself. To over explain, disagreements within the Church have produced horrendous results in the past. In the aftermath of VAT2 we have the same possibility. I don’t think taking such an accusatory stand is helpful when simple explanations would suffice. I have been told by several priests that it takes the Church at least 50 years to make changes peacefully, patience and trust seem to be the proper course. Remember we win in the end anyway.
“Remember we win in the end anyway”.
Yes, we do.
Therefore I tremble when I read that our Our Lord asks:
“When the son of man comes, will He find faith on earth”?
“…if any one part of Catholic truth be given up, another, and another, and another will thenceforward be given up as a matter of course, and the several individual portions having been rejected, what will follow in the end but the rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if what is new begins to be mingled with what is old, foreign with domestic, profane with sacred, the custom will of necessity creep on universally, till at last the Church will have nothing left untampered with, nothing unadulterated, nothing sound, nothing pure; but where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and undefiled truth, thenceforward there will be a brothel of impious and base errors. May God’s mercy avert this wickedness from the minds of his servants; be it rather the frenzy of the ungodly.”—-St. Vincent of Lerins
You two are amazing.
The worship of God is the simplist thing in the world. Try your best to follow the 10 Commandments and Christ’s teachings (not the overworked, overthought, overwrought interpretation–the actual meaning.)
What did Christ say was the most important commandment(s)? Love God and Love your Neighbor. Take a look at the rest of the cammandments. Anything in there about dogma? About baptism? Magisteriums? Arguing creation?
A magician or a con man misdirect’s the audience’s attention with a “plausable diversion”. The statues, the rituals, the dogma, the incense, the beads, the heirarchy, the costume, the rules, the enemies–they are all “plausable diversion.” None of that is necessary to Love God or Love your Neighbor.
“Either the formulation is ambiguous, or a contradiction exists between a given answer in the Catechism, and a earlier, higher-level binding definition or certain teaching of the magisterium.”
You two are sitting here arguing with each other about the right way to pull the con on yourselves while oblivious to the fact that you’re being conned.
Amazing!
How quaint.
The guy who doesn’t believe in God is bursting forth with instruction for how He ought to be worshipped.
Right.
First, Rick, I described myself as an atheist in the previous discussion to make a point–not because that is necessarily my position.
Second, my relationship with God is active. And none of your business.
Third, I see once again that great debaters end up responding with a snide comment instead of addressing the issue.
How typical.
“I described myself as an atheist in the previous discussion to make a point–not because that is necessarily my position.”
So, you have been deliberately deceptive instead of open and honest.
Howard–
No–I was taking the opposite side of a debate.
Either one of you want to address my point?
The point, cminca, is that you are a self-admitted deceiver.
I think that point has already been definitively established, above.
so cminca, their answer, like it always is, is to ignore your question, focus on something else, and be snide.
some things never change.
Howard and Rick, it is easy for us to say we are atheist to you for that is what you see. For it appears from your words if we don’t worship as you do we don’t believe in god. And please don’t ask where you said that, but rather read the words you write to see why one would understand that to be your belief.
Perhaps you did not read the words cminca typed, Alan.
Here they are:
“I described myself as an atheist in the previous discussion”
Now.
In the fantasy world of materialist determinism, I suppose, it were possible to identify oneself as one thing, which thing one is not, and somehow ascribe the untruthfulness to neurons or something.
In the real world, we call it “deceit”.
Hope this helps.
Rick
I think I live more in the real world than you ever will.
He described himself as an atheist, yes he admits that. Not necessarily deceit though. Perhaps he is, perhaps he isn’t. His discription as such was for your understanding, not his.
He claims to beleive in god. Do you think he does?
Now lets see if you can answer that question directly. It is simple enough.
I see it didn’t help.
God is not deceitful, and so the answer to your question is that cmenca worships his belly.
Alan64–
Thanks. Glad to see you get it.
I don’t know why I pay attention to this site=–honestly I only return in the way one is facinated by a car wreck. It revolts you, but you still find it facinating.
“Howard and Rick, it is easy for us to say we are atheist to you for that is what you see. For it appears from your words if we don’t worship as you do we don’t believe in god.”
It isn’t just Howard and Rick. It seems to me that the entire point of this blog is to claim how what better people they are then the rest of society. And to then claim they are persecuted for their “goodness”.
“so cminca, their answer, like it always is, is to ignore your question, focus on something else, and be snide.
some things never change.”
Bingo. And you might as well yell at paint to dry faster.
I appreciate much more the threads attempting to clarify/dispute/learn what is actually the real teachings of the Catholic Church much more than any debate with the idea of which church/belief is right. For “cminca” or anyone who wants to discuss Christianity – no one would have even heard about Jesus were it not for the Catholic Church. You cannot reference Jesus’ words and then in the same thought debunk the group of people responsible for bringing his words to you (Catholic/Orthodox Churches).
If you want to point out that Catholics as individuals are horrible hypocrites, fine. I guess I could agree with that, just like everyone is a horrible hypocrite. But no one can point to the Bible as a basis for saying that the Catholic Church is wrong/a “con” or anything at all contrary to the message of Jesus. It only means that you do not understand the Bible. And that’s not even talking about a deep understanding. I mean that you’re arguing against the people who wrote the thing. You can’t tell the author of a book that you know more about it than he does. That’s never going to change, and that’s why the Catholic Church will always have the upper hand. It doesn’t matter how cool or thoughtful your insight is – Baptists, Lutherans, Church of Life, or “I’m just spiritual” – all of these ideas are late, late, late (like centuries late) in coming. Jesus established a group of people with his message. You can embrace the message or not, but you can’t make up your own message. Well, you can make it up, but some random person understanding things correctly is more about how his/her beliefs square with the truth that was established long ago by God.
“…no one would have even heard about Jesus were it not for the Catholic Church.”
“You cannot reference Jesus’ words and then in the same thought debunk the group of people responsible for bringing his words to you ”
“I mean that you’re arguing against the people who wrote the thing.”
Grant–the actual disciples of Christ would not have identified themselves as Catholics. If anything, they would have identified themselves as Jews.
As for authorship–the early Church didn’t write the bible–it acted as editor. And those editors were men–with political and personal interests.
Because no matter how nobly something may have begun, it can be corrupted over time. Especially somethng as lucrative as religion.
Look at the amount of time this blog–as one example–spends talking about the love of God vs. how much time it spends talking about how to be “catholic”.
It seems to me a lot of people here don’t actually worship God–they simply worship the catholic church.
And the catholic church is NOT God.
“cminca,”
The whole idea about the Bible is that the community that God established did in fact 1)write it and 2) edit it. So, yes, while they edited it, they also wrote it. Catholics didn’t just spring out of nowhere to steal the Bible from Jewish people. In fact, it was the Church that even decided what is an is not the Bible. After events in the life of Christ, this was even a point of contention and division that lasted for a few centuries until I believe the end of the 4th century, when the Church finally declared what is an is not the Bible. Not it stopped contention, but it at least settled the issue (for Christians, not for people who say the Church is a fraud).
If you’re interested in living life the right way (loving God), then you do have legitimate interest in knowing what the Church has to say and following it the best you can. See the discussion between Mjeck and Howard if you want a sincere conversation about that kind of thing.
Whatever your accusation about people worshipping the Church, it’s pretty easy to brush off the idea that I’m worshipping a bunch of old men that I’ve never met. It’s just that we’re right (not just the old guys, but me, too). Like I said in my original post where I referenced you, this is a fundamental truth if you want to be a Christian or have anything to do with the Bible/New Testament. Study history (from any perspective/orientation) and you can see that the group of people who followed Jesus eventually wrote things down and handed down there authority to later generations. That’s the Church. If you are an atheist, then you can say the whole thing is just a bunch of lies and be done with it. But if you want to actually reference the documents like the Bible and claim to know what Jesus “really” preached, then you have to start by admitting that all of your knowledge about Jesus ultimately comes from the Catholic Church who preserved his teachings throughout history.
It’s hard to know about millenia-old figures without some group of people having preserved their identity. Even immediately after the death of Jesus, it was hard because God wanted the message to spread and continue. That’s why the Church is so important and so awesome.
Name,
A point of interest for me is the First Council of Nicaea; around 300 years AFTER Jesus. That is a LONG time before the character of Jesus is institutionalized.
I would like to compare and contrast this time reference with Abe Lincoln. In HALF that time, 150 years, Abe Lincoln went from freeing the slaves, to becoming a Vampire Hunter in the lexicon of our cultural story.
Is it possible that within another 150 years, that everyone would come to believe that Abe had superpowers? What would it take for people to believe the movie as fact?
It would take someone to be in complete control of history and information. Now compare and contrast this scenario with the literacy and power structure of the first 3 century’s.
That Abe Lincoln thing is a funny example and great illustration of why the Church exists. If not, you just leave it up to anyone who is interested to define who Jesus is. No.
This of course is just one reason for the Church to exist, but a pretty clear one. Remember that it’s not just the bishops and Pope, but actually all of the believers (I think as Stacy added somewhere, maybe even more than that, in a way we don’t understand). It’s just that the random guy (including some nameless, anonymous person who wants to insult people on the internet) doesn’t get the authority to definitively speak about articles of faith. Not too hard to understand if you approach the subject with honesty. It’s just part of being a Christian.
Love the Abe Lincoln analogy – makes me want to see the movie even more.
Grant,
I don’t see anything in the gospel that establishes Jesus as a Deity. Maybe if he left us with the recipe for Penicillin or how to build a fridge or predicted some astrological event; the church established his deification 300 years after his death.
Why is belief required under such circumstantial evidence?
Mjeck,
You were really arguing for me, and then you contradict it. How do you know anything about what Christians believed way back when? That is my whole point. You need an established community with the backing of God and nothing less.
There were people 2000 years ago who rejected the divinity of Jesus, just as there are now. But it’s not right for them to reference the Bible. You “don’t see anything in the Bible” establishing God’s divinity. Maybe, maybe not depending on one’s Biblical scholarship. But the Bible doesn’t establish anything. It is a special document left by the Church. If there is no Church, then the Bible is meaningless.
Your Abraham Lincoln analogy is really creative and spot-on. If we are just left to the whims of people doing their normal thing, then of course we will run astray. That’s why we need God’s constant presence on Earth. That would be the Church, which includes it’s ability to speak authoritatively.
People have all varying levels of intelligence, honesty, sincerity, etc. So it really doesn’t make sense that God would just give everyone a Bible and say “figure it out.” No Christian could ever believe anything like that when you consider that the Bible was written by a community of believers who precisely said that they were the ones with the special message. Eventually they wrote it down. Then some people said that didn’t like it, so real Christians had to clear it up (like now). That’s why we have all these councils and such. The message doesn’t change – we just have to react to people saying wrong things about Jesus all of the time. That’s part of the duty of someone with that mission. According to Islam, the holy book essentially fell out of the sky and that’s how they know. According to Christianity, the holy book is a product of the people who were in the process of passing down the traditions from previous believers so that others may also believe. That’s how we know.
People aren’t mad because the Church changes too much. People are mad that after 2000 years, the Church still represents a person who is a challenge to everyone.
Grant,
I don’t think I’m arguing against you, or contradicting myself. I am certainly asking difficult questions and trying to understand how you have come to where you are in your faith.
Following the rules is important, however, from my experience, when you spend all your time learning the rules, you tend to lose sight of the “work-arounds” and fuzzy logic you were shown on day one.
It prevents a person from seeing outside of the box. I’m willing to at least attempt to see inside the box, if you are willing to attempt to see outside of the box?
Jesus spoke a message that was revolutionary at the time. So revolutionary that it spread, infectiously. So important was the message, that people were willing to give up their life.
I don’t think that empirical truth is of utmost importance. Or rather, that there is a higher truth than empirical truth, and that’s hope, faith, love, forgiveness. That does not require intelligence. But it does require character; which I don’t too often see from others.
Like I said before, allegory and symbolism are very important when understanding the bible and I don’t think I’m contradicting myself when I say I’m not required to believe Jesus was God, but still believe in the power of salvation.
Mjeck,
I think at least I understand your perspective. Probably my final thought on the subject, then, is this: most anyone thinks the Bible is interesting, but then some people think there is the actual hand of God involved. If the book is really that special, then it bears the effort learning about how that book came to you.
Grant,
I think you’ve made a good point, thanks for sharing
Thanks, Mjeck. I appreciated the exchange.
Grant,
I would agree with you on just about every point, however i don’t see that the Catholic Church is established to provide God’s revelations, but rather to maintain.
It’s always been the outsiders, the Saints, writers, artists and 1st Century desert dwellers who have revealed God’s Revelation. From what I’ve come to understand, God speaks mostly in alliteration, symbol, allegory; this is the realm of faith and easy to confuse with the literal. The Catholic Church is there to interpret and maintain these messages for the next generation.
Mjeck,
Thanks for your comment. There are lots of people who play a role in the revelation of God. That includes people alive today and you and me. The issue is that lots of people have what could be called spiritual experiences. The Catholic Church is here to say what is (and sometimes what is not) in line with the message of Christ. Some desert people were awesome, and some of them were evil, and then there is every combination of those traits. Just like with people everywhere. My point is that when people do have whatever experiences and want a Christian message related to them, it can only be authentically Christian if it agrees with the fundamental ideas of the Church.
If the saints or desert mystics speak to you more than the encyclicals from Rome, that sounds good. But those people’s insights will only be spiritually nourishing in so far as they are in sync with the boring bishops. I might be looking at it as the tail wagging the dog, but in the end the important thing is that the body is connected and everyone is playing a role. There’s a place for everyone. I like how you bring up the saints, the mystics, artists, etc. But those people are “outsiders” from society, not from the Church.
Fascinating discussion. I’m trying to put my finger on exactly where the disagreement lies. Rick when you said this…
“2. it is more important to dialogue than to persuade, to discuss than to convert.”
…that’s not how I understood it at all. We live in a time where good people have grown up Protestant and honestly do now know why the Church is the One True Church. Before we can persuade anyone, we do have to dialogue, before anyone converts we do have to have discussions.
I also, like Howard, wince at any criticism that causes division. The Magisterium, the bishops and pope, are guided by the Holy Spirit, in the past, now and in the future. It’s not our job to agree or disagree, but to try to understand what they are teaching us.
In Dominus Iesus section 18 then Cardinal Ratzinger seems to be saying the theological explanations of the relationship between Christ, the Church and the Kingdom of God are a mystery, and are not fully understood.
That seems to be the real issue, and I don’t see how that is any more ambiguous now than it was before Vatican II. And if we said we absolutely did know these things, wouldn’t that be the sin of presumption?
“2. it is more important to dialogue than to persuade, to discuss than to convert.”
…that’s not how I understood it at all.”
>> I merely point out the objectively incontestable fact that this is what has in fact occurred.
The Catholic Church is pursuing some strange new novelty *at least as a matter of praxis*, where instead of proclaiming the certain Truths of our Faith with the intended objective of truthfully informing all human beings of the necessity of conversion, baptism, and perseverance in faith, hope and charity for eternal salvation……
We are talking about how someone who does;t sdesire baptism can nonetheless be saved by the desire for baptism, which thing they cannot possibly desire, since no one has preached the necessity of baptism in the first place.
I believe this is wrong, it is novel, it proceeds not from Scripture, it proceeds not from the Fathers, from the Doctors, or from the perennial magisterium.
It proceeds from, notably, Karl Rahner.
By their fruits you shall know them.
“We live in a time where good people have grown up Protestant and honestly do now know why the Church is the One True Church.”
>> Pardon me, this is bunk. Either (a) they do not know it because the Church has not told them so (in which case the sin lies with the prelates who have allowed the collapse of our missionary activity) or else they do not know it because they have heard and rejected the Gospel (in which case they are objectively heretics, and we can leave the subjective aspect to God, Who has established very clearly the means by which salvation is offered to Protestants, to Jews, to atheists, and to pagans alike).
We have apparently decided to abandon the practice and formation of antiquity, in order to follow some “new” approach.
By their fruits you shall know them.
“Before we can persuade anyone, we do have to dialogue, before anyone converts we do have to have discussions.”
>> But what is the intent of the discussion?
Our Lord commands the proclamation of a saving Gospel, a certain proclamation that apart from baptism and perseverance in the Faith, Hope, and Charity, there is no salvation *(at all*.
Where do we hear Our Lord suggesting that those who reject Him can nonetheless be saved in their Protestant heresies, or their Jewish rejection of Christ, or their atheist denial of God?
By their fruits you shall know them.
Stacy, you say:
“That seems to be the real issue, and I don’t see how that is any more ambiguous now than it was before Vatican II. And if we said we absolutely did know these things, wouldn’t that be the sin of presumption?”
>> I am afraid this is impossible. There is no doubt, no ambiguity, no bomfoggery, no “dialectic”, no “invitation to dialogue”, no “mystery”, no “sin of presumption” in the following, infallible, formal thrice-defined *dogma* of the Faith:
1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
2. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
3. “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.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
Now.
These are *unquestionably* heaven-protected, solemn definitions.
They are not vague.
They are not theological speculations.
They do not proceed from the Nouvelle Theologie.
They proceed from Revelation, from Jesus Christ Himself.
I should be shocked, were a random survey of CCD directors to be undertaken, and even 30% should unhesitatingly recognize and agree with threes definitions *as a matter of divine and Catholic Faith*.
But they *are* a matter of divine and Catholic Faith.
The sin of presumption would involve rejecting these, and somehow imagining one was still Catholic.
mjeck, maybe now is a good time to tell us your experiences with God that you mentioned before.
My experience with God? I was a College Art Teacher, so I am pretty comfortable sitting in the camp with artists, writers, and mystics; they are the fuel and inspiration. I’m not very good at following the rules, so I guess I am on this blog to learn.
In my twenties I wanted to know the mind of God, so I memorized 31 chapters of the bible. But this didn’t get me far in understanding God.
God is humbleness; and when God wants you to learn humbleness, he puts you through something that makes you humble. He is unconditional love; and to know unconditional love, you need to know what it feels like to be unlovable. God is courage, kindness, and forgiveness and i do my best every day to give that to others.
I don’t claim to know the mind of God, but I would like to be useful in his cause.
Very interesting. My early background was in photography, still and motion picture. You might not include these in the “arts”, if you do not I would tend to agree.
I don’t like rules either. When my company sergeant gave a talk asking for volunteers for Officers Candidate School to us enlisted, he asked each one in the group if he was interested. When he got to me, he said, “Forget it …… I know what you are going to say.”
Funny thing, I don’t see the Church as a set of rules. There are certainly teachings that could be interpreted as and are often referred to as a body of law. Your students hopefully learned the basics in order to be free to create and prosper. It is no different with the Church.
Howard,
My experience with art is that in all of its forms, from writing, painting, photography, music, sculpting, architecture; all use the same set of rules: composition, contrast, movement, repetition, etc.
I agree with you, when you say that you need to learn the rules before you can break them. But I would go a step further with that, and say you need to learn the rules, then forget all about them and just make art from your heart and soul. Same goes with the art of living. You can’t think about what you should be, you just be.
Mostly, with my students, it was about finding the inspiration inside of them, and pushing them to the next level as a person.
Why is it necessary to teach art if the rules are to be ultimately discarded?
Howard,
Maybe the best analogy would be driving a car. You can’t think about how all the rules of the road work every second. They need to become second nature, and fall to the back of your mind, so you can just drive with instinct.
Art happens in a moment. So does life. Same with a car accident.
“They need to become second nature, and fall to the back of your mind, so you can just……”
Are you not describing the Church’s teaching?
Yes, I would imagine so, in some respect.
In my later life I became a computer programmer. They like to call it software engineering now – anything to complicate life. In the early years of computers, 1960s, people were recruited from the math departments and music departments. The basics are very rigid – one must have a computer, learn a language, be logical. Within that my creative spirit opened up dramatically. I spent my entire carrier in new system development. My juices flowed and I got excited. Sometimes I would go to sleep trying to solve a problem. It was a wonderful way to earn a living. All of it was within a framework that was created for me. The Church is no different.
Howard and Mjeck,
I really enjoy following your exchange, just hope it’s not taking a turn for the worse.
It may be possible that you two agree more than you know.
When I talk with non-Catholics about articles of faith, sometimes it can appear as a bunch of rules. There are even plenty of Catholics who relish in the comfort of following rules and would prefer to describe Christianity that way.
Others, though, of course don’t want to think of their existence as a bunch of rules and definitely not the love and awesomeness of God in that way.
There is plenty of room for different approaches. I think Howard’s main concern in this discussion is pointing out that the Church will always be right about faith. I definitely agree. I think Mjeck’s main concern is pointing out that there is so much to life, that the Pope or bishops are never going to be able to say/see it all, especially how it might relate to one specific individual. I would agree with that, too. With the Church’s history of different people claiming such and such a thing about Jesus, we need to understand that Howard does have an important point, that whatever divine experience anyone might have, it has to be understood in the context of sound faith. It’s not that the Church/bishops has to directly, explicitly affirm every aspect of all our personal relationships with God – that’s silly and obviously time-consuming.
But if these experiences are also meant to be instruction in who God is, Jesus’ message, etc., then they will inevitably be in sync with the Church’s teaching.
You can marvel at a painting and get your idea of what it means to you. Sometimes art is the most powerful way of communication. But if you want to understand what God is communicating to you, whatever that thing happens to be at whatever time it happens to be, it will agree with the message of the Church. “Rules” will probably not be of concern.
By the way, I am fond of the arts, especially music and painting. I’m not good at those, though, so I try stories.
but Grant, do you beleive that some can absolutely not believe in god and as such should not have to live by the guidelines (rules, morals, directive or whatever you want to call it) of the Catholic Church?
I do find it quite telling that two catholics are having a difference of opinion here though
Alan,
I don’t know the two Catholics you refer to, but to respond to your questions:
Should everyone be Catholic? Yes.
Should everyone be allowed not to be Catholic? Yes. That’s also part of being Catholic.
Everyone individual in society is trying to impose on everyone else, so there are millions of ways to disagree on to what extent you should permit people to do other things you disagree with, if that is what you mean about other people living by Catholic guidelines.
Grant
Thanks for the direct answer about should everyone be catholic. I don’t agree, but a direct answer is nice.
And I agree that we all impose on others, trying to find the middle ground is hard.
And did I miss something. Aren’t both Stacy and Rick catholics? I know Howard is and he and Rick seem to be having some disagreements.
To me that is a problem. We all should be catholic but even the catholics don’t agree on it all. So where are the lines drawn?
Alan, I will answer you. I believe that Rick loves God, probably lives a life that is very close to what Jesus taught, maybe even closer than me. Wrangling about doctrine does not involve me in his personal faith or he in mine – unless he calls me a heritic.
Alan, the Catholic Church is nothing at all like you imagine Her to be.
You don’t understand Her yet.
She is like a very, very, very, very large family, perhaps……or like a spiritual emergency room in the worst part of town on the hottest night of summer under a blue moon.
The thing you are expecting see in Her, is found only in that part of Her which resides with God in heaven, the Church Triumphant.
Howard and I are working out our salvation as members of a different part of the Church; the Church on earth, the Church…….Militant.
Howard and Rick,
It’s funny how you tell me I don’t understand the church, but clearly one of you too must not understand the church or you would be in total agreement.
So how about you two come to an agreement before telling me a. what I do and don’t understand and b. that I am wrong.
Hows that sound?
Alan, I have not told you that but I will try and answer your question.
What we both are doing is very right. We are struggling to find out the truth of what God wants us to do. Since we both and all men are imperfect and human and have fee thought/will we just don’t know automatically what all of that is. As time progresses, we as individuals grow in that knowledge if we are sincere. There is a large amount of information about life discussed by the Church leaders that does not require us to believe and not question. Still, our nature is to question even those things that are considered sure by the Church. The ultimate judge is God himself as to our loyalty to Him.
But Howard none of you are necessarily being loyal to god. You are being loyal to the church and it’s teaching of god. Please understand that distinction.
Alan, and you know this how?
Howard by your words.
are you denying you follow the catholic church and it’s dogma, doctrines and practices? Because that is not what you have said.
And god is about so much more than just the catholic church. I think Rick is saying that god is only the catholic church. Are you disagreeing with him?
Does that make other christians wrong? Will they get into heaven?
Are other relgions acceptable to you Howard?
“And god is about so much more than just the catholic church. I think Rick is saying that god is only the catholic church. Are you disagreeing with him?”
Our disagreement has to do with an understanding of a teaching on a particular type of salvation. Actually a type that doesn’t affect me.
“Does that make other christians wrong? “
“Will they get into heaven?”
By “that” I assume you mean what you understood Rick to be saying. Better ask Rick.
“Are other relgions acceptable to you Howard?”
Acceptable. I have been and agnostic and a member of another religion. Neither is acceptable now for me to be a member.
Grant and Howard,
I would completely agree with what Grant said. Programmers and Artists are probably the complete opposite in the spectrum of experience. I have never programmed, but I have worked closely with C++ programmers. I’ve also scripted, from a C++ language. I’ve also worked with Artists, and they tend really upset programmers when they break the program to make something pretty; then ask the programmers to just “Change the program”.
I think God has a place for everyone and I think everyone needs to remember that.
I love mathematics. When programmers and Artists have a good line of communication, they can really make something beautiful.
Mjeck, you forget that I have experience in both.
Howard,
You said you started out in photography. I knew a guy who programmed and did art, he was very intelligent
Sorry, Your last sentance was not in the email.
Rick or anyone else,
I understand what Rick is saying, but I don’t know if I agree. I want to understand, but one test I have for knowing how well I understand something is to ask myself if I could explain it to someone at a practical level.
How would you answer this question?
If a Protestant knew of the Catholic Church but never really took the time to understand the teaching and never met anyone who really represented it very well, does he go straight to hell when he dies? Even if he lived a life of faith and died singing “How Great Thou Art!” in his last breath?
My answer would be in line with the Catechism, and it makes sense to me. I would tell him that we do not presume, we hope, pray and trust in the infinite Mercy and Love of Our Lord. The Church recognizes baptism of Protestants.
I still come back to section 18 in Dominus Iesus. What is the Kingdom of God? What is the Kingdom of Christ? It seems to say we don’t fully understand that yet.
“If a Protestant knew of the Catholic Church but never really took the time to understand the teaching and never met anyone who really represented it very well, does he go straight to hell when he dies? ”
>> Overwhelmingly likely. The sole exception would be a validly baptized person (by definition, a Catholic at that moment) who never *willfully denied* any dogma of the Faith, and who lived their whole life long without committing a single mortal sin.
It is extremely safe to say that, while God can save any way He chooses, He does not choose to save those who mortally sin after baptism, absent sacramental absolution.
Is it possible God intervenes in some unknown way, to elicit, perhaps, an act of perfect contrition at the moment of death in such a case.
With God all things are possible.
But such a possibility must be balanced against several important considerations.
God could as easily have intervened in the life of this Protestant, so as to unite him to the Church, which God has stated is *absolutely necessary for salvation*, that is, *no one at all, ever, in any way, is ever saved unless united to the Catholic Church at death*.
So.
My question for you.
Given that:
1. God can save in an infinite number of ways; and
2. God has told us of exactly one way in which He intends to save us…..
Which should we preach?
A gospel of God can save anyone in infinite, unknowable ways?
Or God will certainly damn every soul that dies outside the unity of the catholic Church?
The former is a tautology.
The latter is the Truth.
“I still come back to section 18 in Dominus Iesus. What is the Kingdom of God? What is the Kingdom of Christ? It seems to say we don’t fully understand that yet.”
>> How very strange, then, that we understood it well enough to convert the world, create saints, build a civilization, and proclaim with all the authority of the magisterium that we *did understand it well enough to assure every soul that there is no salvation outside the catholic Church*.
St. Vincent has foreseen the Nouvelle Theologie in all of its indescribable damage:
“………it follows necessarily that all the faithful of all ages, all the saints, the chaste, the continent, the virgins, all the clergy, Deacons and Priests, so many thousands of Confessors, so vast an army of martyrs, such multitudes of cities and of peoples, so many islands, provinces, kings, tribes, kingdoms, nations, in a word, almost the whole earth, incorporated in Christ the Head, through the Catholic faith, have been ignorant for so long a tract of time, have been mistaken, have blasphemed, have not known what to believe, what to confess.”
This is impossible.
Therefore the Nouvelle Theologie is wrong in its novelties.
The disaster which has befallen us consists precisely in preferring the best thinking of innovators to the authentic, defined dogmas of our Holy Faith, in any case where the two might even *possibly* be in conflict.
Stacy:
My little break in schedule here now nears its end.
There has been a great change since the Council.
It is very analogous, in many explicitly acknowledged ways by certain of the Council Fathers, to the Copernican Revolution.
Once Cardinal expressly states, in reference to the Council, that “the Church has had her Copernican Revolution.”
The Principle is a powerful one, isn;t it?
And thanks to all for riling me up enough to post my first new entry on my blog in several months:
http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2012/07/consilience-welcome-to-post-scientific.html
To Rick from Bomfogger If you are still around,
“Still waiting for the claim in the Vatican II texts that those outside the Church can be saved.
You haven’t provided it yet.”
LUMEN GENTIUM, chapter one “The Mistery of the Church” discusses salvation in detail but this one quote is only from #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.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life
But of course, Howard.
Those helps are the same ones he provided me when I was an atheist.
I know them well.
Of course these can attain to salvation.
Just like anyone else.
By being translated from the condition of child of Adam to child of God through baptism.
Not a syllable in there about desiring baptism– something they do not desire, and cannot desire, since they do not know what it is in the first place.
So.
The Catechism teaches, concerning “implicit baptism of desire”, what is not taught in the Council documents, as I have been assuring you all along.
It is a theological opinion which is expressed in #1260, Howard.
One which seems to be very difficult to understand in light of Sacred Tradition.
So the Council teaches ways known only to God (perfect!) while the catechism suggests baptism of implicit desire (not so good!).
I thank God that I am not bound as matter of divine and Catholic Faith to accept the very problematic theological speculation of CCC #1260.
The LG passage is perfectly congruent with Scripture and Tradition.
After all, God can do whatever He wants, involving things He has never told us about.
But what He *has* told us, is this:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven”.
Therefore get baptized, is my urgent and serious advice.
Rick, your argument is with the Church and I am afraid you are substituting your own and selected commentary on theology for Hers. I find your interpretations convoluted, misdirecting and pedantic.
Rick said, “There has been a great change since the Council.
It is very analogous, in many explicitly acknowledged ways by certain of the Council Fathers, to the Copernican Revolution.
Once Cardinal expressly states, in reference to the Council, that “the Church has had her Copernican Revolution.”
The Principle is a powerful one, isn;t it?”
——————But
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
“In the post-conciliar period, however, and notwithstanding these clear affirmations, the doctrine of Vatican II has been, and continues to be, the object of erroneous interpretations at variance with traditional Catholic doctrine on the nature of the Church: either seeing in it a ‘Copernican revolution’ or else emphasising some aspects almost to the exclusion of others.”
“There is also a continuity between the doctrine taught by the Council and that of subsequent interventions of the Magisterium which have taken up and deepened this same doctrine, which itself constitutes a development.”
“…..the Second Vatican Council did not intend to change – and therefore has not changed – the previously held doctrine on the Church. It merely deepened this doctrine and articulated it in a more organic way.”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_commento-responsa_en.html
——————Unless you can show me that you have a greater authority to explain the teachings of the Church than the CDF and the CCC or to say that we could not reverse understand the CCC back to LG because they teach contradictory ideas, I am afraid you fail to convince.
“847……….
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 am very grateful to Cardinal Ratzinger for opposing the statement that “the Church has had her Copernican Revolution”.
It has apparently escaped your notice that the statement had to be made in the first place, thus confirming what I previously reported.
There is a battle going on inside the Church, Howard, and this you also may not have noticed.
Those of us who have, intend to stand against all heresies, novelties, heterodoxies, and innovations which have been proposed in the disastrous conciliar era.
Our best (our only!) help in this battle, is the heaven-protected magisterium of the Catholic Church.
I have already explained to you several times that I have no argument with the Church.
I have an argument with baptism of implicit desire.
I do not believe it, and I am not required to believe it.
If you think I am required to believe it, my bishop is His Grace Jose Gomez of Los Angeles.
I certainly do not intend to surrender my Catholic liberty on the basis of what you have posted here, and it is clear that nothing I post here is going to have any impact upon you.
Thanks for the exchange.
What you believe is up to you, this is after all a thread about free will.
The Church has always been in battle internally and externally. From Judas to Paul and the Corinthians to the Orthodox split to the Reformation to the VAT2 era. I am very aware that differences exist as I am an outcast of sorts attending the extraordinary form exclusively. As has been quoted, “We have been trying to destroy ourselves for 2,000 years.”
My approach has been to marvel at the extraordinary continuation of consistant doctrine and to be cautious of detractors.
Completely understood.
My approach is to decline to be bound by what in fact does not bind in the first place, and is proposed in a catechism, very precisely, as a permitted *speculation* (it “may be supposed”).
The speculation has certain very grievous logical inconsistencies, and the pointing out of these is a service to the Church, since the first French edition of the same Catechism contained passages of an even much more gravely problematic nature, and these passages were corrected in the Latin editio typica- *because* the problems were made known, discussed, debated, and submitted to the magisterium.
Exactly as the theological speculation “baptism of implicit desire” is being discussed, debated, and *presently discerned* by the magisterium.
Rick, one thing that would help me understand your position is for you to articulate what is meant by the word “mystical”, as in the mystical body of Christ, the Church.
I’m in agreement with Stacy in that I accept the literal meaning of the doctrine of outside the church no salvation. But I think that the Church herself, being literally the body of Christ, is something I can’t fully grasp not because I am dumb but because it is something partly observable but partly not. What I intend by “the Church” can’t be what Christ intended by the Church.
So, why is the Church known as the mystical body of Christ? Doesn’t this suggest that the idea of the Church cannot be exhausted by her empirical presence in history?
I’m not trying to be squishy. I just want to understand. I will also go read your blog post.
Jeff:
The Mystical Body of Christ consists in those united to Christ the Head through baptism and perseverance in faith, hope and charity.
There is the Church Triumphant in heaven, the Church Suffering in Purgatory, and the Church Militant on earth.
There is absolutely no exception to the conditions outlined above, insofar as the authentic, infallible definitions of the Church are concerned.
There is a definition concerning baptism of desire (Trent Session IV); that is, one who desires baptism, such as a catechumen, but is inculpably prevented from receiving it before death, is justified by the desire for baptism; he is translated from the condition of child of Adam, to child of God.
Lately we hear a very great deal about what I cannot presently understand to be anything other than a self-evident tautology; to wit, that God can save in ways unknown to us.
Why, of course He can.
He is, after all, God, and can do whatever He wishes in this respect.
The very relevant point which seems to be increasingly blurred, is that *God has in fact told us of exactly one, and only one, way in which He *will* save us*!
He has explicitly told us that He *will not save us in any other way!*
So I find myself deeply troubled by the proposition that what God *can* do, is somehow relevant once it has been established with the certainty of Faith that God has *told us what He is doing*, and that, exactly, is saving souls by baptism and perseverance in faith hope and charity in the Mystical Body of Christ.
We have been ruinously attacked by Karl Rahner and his “anonymous Christianity”, which has managed to gain ingress even into a Roman Catechism in the form of a speculated “baptism of implicit desire”.
How, please can one desire what one does not desire?
And if one can be saved without baptism, or the desire for it, then in what possible sense can it have been anything other than a fraud, an error, an heresy, for the Church to have insisted in all ages, times, places, through Scripture, through the Apostles, through the Fathers, the Doctors, the Saints, the Popes, the Councils, that *no one at all can be saved apart from baptism or the desire for it*?
I am afraid the introduction of the Nouvelle Theologie has in fact brought about very serious difficulties, and has disoriented the Church in very serious ways (please, if you can stomach it, watch the disastrous blunder of Cardinal Pell when challenged by the logically-consistent argument of atheist Richard Dawkins concerning Original Sin).
We are rapidly, it seems to me, sliding toward a novel, and frankly unorthodox understanding of salvation; one which is foreign to Scripture, to Tradition, to the Doctors, and to prior, solemn, irreformable definitions, promulgated as authentic acts of the ordinary and supreme magisterium.
This unorthodox understanding has, empirically, coincided with the greatest collapse in missionary activity in the history of the Church.
By their fruits you shall know them.
I believe we have a problem, and I believe it must be clearly identified and addressed (which is exactly what the discussions between the SSPX and the Curia are intended to do).
Thanks Jeff. There was something I wanted to point out too as I read through this discussion last night.
Even with baptism of desire, the Catechism and everything I’ve ever read about it states that it is a *possibility* not a foregone conclusion. There is no salvation outside the Church, but like Jeff is saying, that statement is still a mystery.
The Church accepts one baptism too, even from Protestants. When I converted, I was not re-baptized. The complete immersion in a tub full of water before a Baptist congregation that I had as a young adolescent WAS my baptism. So to say one must be baptized to be in the Church — well, doesn’t that beg the question about what IS the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, in total? Dominus Iesus also refers to the Church as a seed that is growing.
“On the one hand, the Church is “a sacrament — that is, sign and instrument of intimate union with God and of unity of the entire human race”. She is therefore the sign and instrument of the kingdom; she is called to announce and to establish the kingdom. On the other hand, the Church is the “people gathered by the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”; she is therefore “the kingdom of Christ already present in mystery” and constitutes its seed and beginning. The kingdom of God, in fact, has an eschatological dimension: it is a reality present in time, but its full realization will arrive only with the completion or fulfilment of history.”
This is again from section 18 and it references not only LG, but also the Didache, “May the Church be gathered from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.”
“Even with baptism of desire, the Catechism and everything I’ve ever read about it states that it is a *possibility* not a foregone conclusion.”
>> Exactly. This is the key to get out of this Rahnerian universal-salvation trap, so cleverly set by the insertion of ambiguous language in some key conciliar documents.
The genius of this ploy is truly breathtaking!
Say the Council is “pastoral” (?- utterly unprecedented in all of history!) and wishes to define no new dogma.
Introduce ambiguities (“subsists in” rather than “is” for example- my oh my how much mileage have we seen equivocators gain by quibbles over the meaning of what “is” is in this disastrous time!)……..employ the ambiguities to stretch the “envelope”of permitted theological speculations……..and voila!
Next thing you know we have Cardinals being eaten alive on national television by atheists who understand precisely the logical foundations of the Catholic Dogma of original sin- the *very reason Christ comes into the world in the first place*!
Here is the way out.
We can acknowledge the tautology- “Yes!” we can say. “You are right!” “It is possible that God may act to save some person through some way not known to us.”
* But since there is no way for us to know of this, then it is a bloody well obvious waste of time to talk about it in the first place!
It is *irrelevant to us since it is beyond our knowledge*.
This allows the ambiguities of the conciliar texts to remain, subjected to proper interpretation *in light of Tradition*.
If on the other hand it is the intention of the Nouvelle Theologie to boil Catholics like frogs, little by little, until sentimental theology and bonfoggery succeed in substituting a new religion, which cleverly wraps itself up in the trappings of the old………
In that case the Nouvelle Theologie is dangerous and heretical, and could conceivably even be the means by which the “great apostasy” foretold in Scripture by St. Paul is initiated and sustained.
I think we are living in the most critical moment in the Church’s modern history, more important even than the Protestant schism.
St. Paul and St. Vincent have already advised us, as simple faithful Catholics, of what to do in times like these:
“What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.”—–
St. Vincent of Lerins, “Commonitorium”
“There is no salvation outside the Church, but like Jeff is saying, that statement is still a mystery.”
>> It is no mystery at all, unless one were experiencing difficulty accepting, in its plain meaning, and in the sense in which it has been understood from its moment of promulgation, the following extraordinarily clear and un-mysterious, thrice defined *dogma* of our Holy Faith:
1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
2. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
3. “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.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
What I find so eerie when I read the above prophetic words of Saint Vincent of Lerins, is that he first addresses, over the centuries, those tempted to the path of the SSPX, and then second those tempted to the path of synthesis, of novelty……of consilience.
St. Vincent of Lerins, pray for us!
Stacy:
It is infallible teaching that even heretics can baptize validly, and it is infallible teaching that you, along with every other person ever validly baptized since the promulgation of the Gospel, are at that instant a member of the Catholic Church.
Except, of course, that the church is not infallible in it’s teachings.
Just because it claims it is doesn’t make it true. Anymore than a lot of people claiming there were WMD in Iraq didn’t make that true either.
And a catholic claiming a catholic had a divine revelation is somehow the “proof” of catholic doctrine is the same as Cheney leaking a false story to the press and then using the newspaper’s report as “proof” of his false contention later on a TV show.
I was baptised in the Unitarian Church in Philadelphia. I can assure you I am not now, nor will I ever be, a member of the catholic church.
Ahem.
You are correct about the “not now” part, cminca, since you were not validly baptized in the first place.
One is of course perplexed: why would a fellow who disbelieves in divine revelation in the first place, bother with a counterfeit baptism at all…..?
But then again, maybe it was his neurons.
So you go from “even heretics can baptize validly” to not validly baptized. So Unitarians are beyond help. Is this what is known as infallible thinking?
I never claimed I didn’t believe in the concept of divine revelation. I just don’t buy the cc’s contention that all of their illogical posturings are “divine revelation” when a lot of it is more easily defined as political or financial self interest.
And it wasn’t my neurons–it was my parents.
You were never baptized validly, cmiinca.
“Go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
You did not receive the baptism of Christ, of His Church.
You received a sprinkling of water by deniers of the Revelation of God in Christ.
No one is beyond help, by the way, until they are dead and unbaptized.
Then they are beyond help.
It is good that you do not exclude the possibility of divine revelation.
You are not beyond help.
It is also good you are not baptized; all your blasphemies will be washed away should you become baptized at any time before death.
I hope that you will.
Rick,
I fail to see how you are about to undergo persecution. Is that hyperbole or poor reasoning?
Maybe you’re confusing persecution with blow back? From the church involving itself in political matters? If Catholic’s would like to give up their tax-free status, they are welcome to then position themselves into the political fray. Otherwise, I think you have a pretty good deal: To freely worship and gather, tax-free property and unmonitored assets, citizenship and your own schools. Wow!
I agree that you do not see this, and a great many other things besides, but the prophecies and prodigies of our Holy Faith are for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Christianity begins at the Cross.
The entire historical basis for assessing the truth claims of the Catholic Church involve a crucifixion- a death by unspeakable torture- of Her Founder, and His subsequent, completely irrefutable Sign- His resurrection from the dead.
The Mystical Body of Christ simply follows this pattern established by the Lord, working out in history what He has accomplished in His atoning death and triumphant resurrection.
Of course we will be, are being, have been persecuted.
It is in the nature of our witness to be persecuted.
What we are, what He Is, cannot be tolerated by the world for which Christ does not pray (Jn 17:9- “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me: because they are thine”)
We do not worship in Churches only, or teach in schools only.
We are at war with the world, the flesh, and the devil, and in the end, there is no fellowship possible between Christ and Belial.
There is only one important decision to be made in this life.
All else is passing away.
The blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians.
Speaking strictly for myself, there is nothing which would be better for the Catholic Church in the United States of America, than a decision by the government to revoke Her tax exempt status.
This would instantly result in the immensely helpful destruction of endless vistas of bureaucratic accretion, such the the awful USCCB and assorted Communist apparatchik salarymen attached to its various umbilicals.
Chancery offices would quickly empty of all those who feed at the trough but have no divine and Catholic Faith- why, this alone would strengthen the Faith immensely and immediately!
Another advantage of this would be to deprive the enemies of Christ of their ability to intimidate and silence the weak and disgraceful prelates who are prepared to compromise with Belial, and subject Catholic schoolchildren to indoctrination in homosexualist propaganda, in order to keep the funding rolling in.
I heartily endorse your efforts toward this end.
As Hillare Belloc and I have already told you:
“When persecution comes, then it will be morning”.
You want to punish Catholics as much as you want to punish the wayward? Are you sure you’re a Catholic? Could it be that you’re really just a misanthrope? Or worse …a Southern Baptist?
Rick, you might want to re-take your Confirmation Classes, and this time, don’t skip over the love, forgiveness and compassion parts.
Punishment. Mjek?
Punishment comes, for us, in the form of a government prepared to seize our property and imprison us if we decline to be party to sins and evils which they have just recently discovered and proclaimed to be rights.
Your compassion drips from every syllable above.
Our compassion for you consists in this:
We pray for your conversion.
We will feed you when the banks fail, to the best of our ability.
We will educate your children, if we are still permitted the latitude under Fascism With A Democratic Face to do so. If not, we will do so secretly.
If you request baptism, we will give it to you.
If you die without it, we will bury you and pray for your soul.
I am finished with you.
I wish you well.
I see, so you understand kindness and compassion as me doing everything your way… or the highway. Uhm, Thank-you?
Rick–
Your recent postings have convinced me that you are one step away from walking the streets with tin foil wrapped around your head. (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt. I could be wrong.)
I can now see–for certain–that continuing any kind of conversation with the 8 or so regular posters on this site is as meaningful as talking to a head of broccoli.
Mjeck–I wish you all luck in the future. Keep up the good fight, but understand that this crew is only really interested in talking to people who agree with themselves–about their worship of all things catholic church(which is NOT God) and about their holier-than-thou persecution complex.
Stacy–Bougueareau was a hack who painted interchangable cartoon characters on interchangable cartoon backgounds. (Take a generic female female–add robes and a baby–call it Madonna–strip off the robes, add wings on the baby–call it spring–add a clamshell–call it birth of venus. Pump out canvases by the dozens for the tastless nouveau riche of the 1870s. Hack.) His work is about following the rules of technique–it is all smooth surface and “prettyness”. There is no depth, either in subject matter or impasto. There is no feeling. There is no art.
It is, however, an amazing metaphor for your catholicism. All rules of technique, no thought, no depth.
I’m not being hateful. I’ve attempted to point out the inconsistancies in your positions and your citations. You are so busy argueing the rules that you are missing the whole point of Christ–loving your fellow humans.
But honestly the over-the-top rhetoric–has convinced me that I would get further trying to make sense to a meth addict.
I’m done wasting my time.
cminca,
If you are suggesting that Rick has an actual mental illness, don’t you think he deserves as much love as everyone else; if not more?
I was never trying to change Rick’s mind. Rick is highly intelligent, and I think he makes a convincing point about reality. I would still like to have a conversation about geo-centrism, and in the process, suggest bio-centrism as a better answer.
I enjoy my conversations with Grant, Andrew and Howard; they are respectable, decent men.
God is about love, kindness, charity, forgiveness and I think you should stick around.
I’ve been reading some comments, and read the original article, and here’s my perspective. Since I’m not Catholic, and this is a very within-the-family sort of thing, take it with a grain of salt.
It seems that many Catholics want clarity. They want to express their beliefs in a way that is as simple as possible, but not simpler.
If “outside the Church there is no salvation” means “outside formal communion with the Catholic Church in union with the Pope in Rome”, well, what about Moses? Why isn’t he in hell? Maybe he is?
But maybe it instead means what Stacy seems to suggest, as far as I understand it, that God is not limited in the way he may save people, so there are ways to be saved without being part of a church registry, or something. So baptism by desire, or maybe even by implicit desire, belongs here. There is also something about invincible ignorance, but I do not know what this is.
Anyway, if it is the case that “outside the Church there is no salvation” really means what Stacy and even what Rick seems to be saying, why not change it to “Outside the grace of God there is no salvation?” Doesn’t that have greater clarity?
What is the point about mentioning the Church at all, if you don’t need to be formally part of it to be saved?
Ace, like in lots of things, particular language may differ from common usage and need to be clarified. Catholics use “Church” this way.
Prologue to CCC – God draws close to man, He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church.
1273 Incorporated into the Church by Baptism, the faithful have received the sacramental character that consecrates them for Christian religious worship. The baptismal seal enables and commits Christians to serve God by a vital participation in the holy liturgy of the Church and to exercise their baptismal priesthood by the witness of holy lives and practical charity.
Ace,
Those are great points. I am learning that is the job of theologians to carefully define words so that they have consistent meaning, and always within loyalty to the Magisterium because it is so much greater than any one, or group of, theologians.
It’s like any other discipline – if you discard the knowledge of the discipline, you cease to be one who studies it. A physicist who denies gravity ceases to be a physicist because all he studies is based on a flawed premise.
Anyway…
The wording you suggest would lead to many errors, like Rick has pointed out. It would contradict what is revealed in scripture about salvation. We do need the grace of God to be saved, but since that grace comes through Christ and since Christ established the Church, the Church is necessary for salvation.
This drawing in, is something we don’t fully understand. In my mind, as I said in the short essay, I think of a family. The parents cannot deny the very foundation upon which the family is established, but they can reach out to children or other members who have fallen away from the family unity.
Thanks for the Catechism quotes, Howard.
Ace: “It seems that many Catholics want clarity. They want to express their beliefs in a way that is as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
>> Bingo.
Ace: If “outside the Church there is no salvation” means “outside formal communion with the Catholic Church in union with the Pope in Rome”, well, what about Moses? Why isn’t he in hell? Maybe he is?
>> Nope. Other side of the Cross. Moses was saved, like Abraham, all the patriarchs, and all the saints of the Old Covenant, by Faith in the Coming Messiah.
Of course once He comes, one is saved in the New Covenant, the eternal Covenant in His Blood.
There are no known exceptions- in fact no knowable exceptions- to this. It is a certain, dogmatic, irreformable, and infallible Truth of the Faith.
“Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven”.
If this is wrong, then Christ has lied, and there is no salvation in Him.
This is not wrong.
Ace: “But maybe it instead means what Stacy seems to suggest, as far as I understand it, that God is not limited in the way he may save people, so there are ways to be saved without being part of a church registry, or something.”
>> The Church has defined baptism of desire, but this of course requires the desire for…….baptism. Thus catechumens who inculpably fail to receive baptism before death, would nonetheless be justified by their desire (Latin “votum”, a word which carries connotations of a “vow”).
Ace: “So baptism by desire, or maybe even by implicit desire, belongs here.”
>> Two very different things. The Church has solemnly defined that baptism of desire can justify a man. The notion of baptism of implicit desire carries with it, among other difficulties, the very serious one of l;logically proposing that one is a saved by the desire for that which one does not desire in the first place.
Baptism of implicit desire has never been taught in any way by any Council or Pope or Doctor or Saint of Father of the Church, ever.
Ace: “There is also something about invincible ignorance, but I do not know what this is.”
>> God will not hold one personally responsible for failing to accept the Gospel, if one is not personally responsible for failing to accept the Gospel. is what this means.
Of course ignorance, even invincible ignorance, has never been shown to remit original sin (how could it? If it did then the greatest crime in the world would be to preach the Gospel and thus place the invincibly ignorant in jeopardy of judgement), and so invincible ignorance is not a means to salvation.
Ace: “Anyway, if it is the case that “outside the Church there is no salvation” really means what Stacy and even what Rick seems to be saying, why not change it to “Outside the grace of God there is no salvation?” Doesn’t that have greater clarity?”
>> No, since God’s grace is, exactly, manifested in His Son, Who explicitly informs us:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven”.
That is perfect clarity.
Ace: “What is the point about mentioning the Church at all, if you don’t need to be formally part of it to be saved?”
>> Oh what an excellent question. I am afraid the innovators cannot answer it from Scripture, or Tradition, or Councils, or Doctors,. or Fathers, or Saints, or Popes.
They must answer it with the fluffy ambiguities of the Nouvelle Theologie.
Thanks Rick.
Also, baptism by desire and baptism by blood (martyrs) are said to be **possibilities**. The Church doesn’t admit any more than that, to my knowledge. That’s one reason the question of limbo is still unanswered, but I like how it was addressed. We are people of hope and prayer, so we pray and hope for these possibilities for people to be saved, but while never denying that there is no salvation outside the Church, or denying that baptism is necessary.
“we pray and hope for these possibilities for people to be saved, but while never denying that there is no salvation outside the Church, or denying that baptism is necessary.”
>> Bingo.
In this way the Truths of God’s omnipotence, and the veracity and reliability of His Revelation in Jesus Christ, are both maintained.
If there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and if that is what we really believe with divine and Catholic Faith, then we will convert the world.
Otherwise we shall dialogue with it.
Ace, I believe Rick’s position can be summed up by saying that baptism (brought into the Church from outside) can only be accomplished via the hands of man.
Rick, are you saying that the only valid baptism is immersion?
Howard, baptism is a “plunging” or “immersion” (baptizein), signifying death and burial (CCC 1214).
I am unable to presently understand how this can be accomplished absent the hands on man.
“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:3-4).
I am saying, Howard, that the word *means* “plunging, immersion”.
Sprinkling will do fine, we have the word of the Holy Catholic Church on this, so long as the form and matter are observed, and the minister of the sacrament intends to do what the Church does.
Now.
All of this specified, the question remains.
How is any of this to be done without the hand of man?
Thanks.
Comment
Rick, if we put it together we have:
Baptism is necessary for salvation.
Baptism can only be accomplished by the hands of man.
The baptism of desire can be a means of final justification.
How is this baptism accomplished except by the hands of God alone – without water?
Howard:
There is no such thing as “final justification”.
Justification is an initial condition.
It translates one from the condition of child of Adam to child of God.
Baptism of desire does not imprint the character of baptism on the soul, it merely effectuates the translation.
This condition can be lost- is lost, regularly, even for those who have received the character of sacramental baptism imprinted upon the soul- via mortal sin.
So- to answer your question, baptism cannot be accomplished apart from human hands, and this is precisely because it is a sacrament of the Holy Catholic Church, which Christ has willed, in all of its humanity, to be the means of salvation for every human person.
The desire (“votum”) for baptism can justify a man, but it is not sacramental baptism, and it is not a matter of De Fide definite whether even one justified by baptism of desire can be saved; only that it is permissible to believe that one so justified, if they were to die, having failed inculpable to receive the sacrament, *could* be saved, provided they persevered in Faith, Hope, and Charity until death.
If anyone says, ever, that such-and-so a person has been saved apart from baptism or the desire for it, then that would be heresy.
Rick, instead of circling around the uses of the word baptism, I think this makes it clearer and from of all places, SSPX.
“When the Council of Trent is read carefully, we see that the Council teaches that:
…it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time (if they but die in the state of grace) (see Apoc. 14:13; 606, can. 32), because Christ our Savior says: “He who drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst, but it will become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting” (see Jn. 4:13 ff.)8 [Session VI, Chap. 16; Dz 809].
In other words, salvation, which is at the end of the Christian life on earth, only requires perseverance in the state of grace received at justification, which is at the beginning of the Christian life on earth. Baptism is the sacrament of justification, the sacrament of the beginning of the Christian life. If one has received sanctifying grace, which is the reality of the sacrament —res sacramenti —of baptism, he only needs to persevere in that grace to be saved. Perseverance in grace requires obedience to the Commandments of God, including the commandment to receive the sacrament of baptism. Thus there remains for him the obligation to receive baptism of water. But, this is no longer absolutely necessary (by necessity of means), since he has already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that means. It still remains necessary in virtue of our Lord’s precept to be baptized by water. When and if circumstances independent of our will prevent us from fulfilling such a precept, the principle taught by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others is to be applied: “God takes the will as the fact.” This means that God accepts the intention to receive the sacrament of baptism as equivalent to the actual reception of the sacrament.”
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm
A document that supports the CCC is from JP2 referencing VAT2. These are exerpts.
“However, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, the gift of salvation cannot be limited “to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all.” And, in admitting that it is concretely impossible for many people to have access to the Gospel message, I added: “Many people do not have the opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions” (RM 10).
We must acknowledge that, as far as human beings can know and foresee, this practical impossibility would seem destined to last a long time, perhaps until the work of evangelization is finally completed. Jesus himself warned that only the Father knows “the exact time” set by him for the establishment of his kingdom in the world (cf. Acts 1:7).
For those too who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and are not recognized as Christians, the divine plan has provided a way of salvation. As we read in the Council’s Decree Ad Gentes, we believe that “God in ways known to himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel” to the faith necessary for salvation (AG 7). Certainly, the condition “inculpably ignorant” cannot be verified nor weighed by human evaluation, but must be left to the divine judgment alone. For this reason, the Council states in the Constitution Gaudium et Spes that in the heart of every man of good will, “Grace works in an unseen way…. The Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery” (GS 22).
Hence the importance of the Church’s indispensable role. She “is not an end unto herself, but rather is fervently concerned to be completely of Christ, in Christ and for Christ, as well as completely of men, among men and for men.” This role then is not “ecclesiocentric,” as is sometimes said. The Church does not exist nor does she work for herself, but is at the service of a humanity called to divine sonship in Christ (cf. RM 19). She thus exercises an implicit mediation also with regard to those who do not know the Gospel.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html
“….salvation, which is at the end of the Christian life on earth, only requires perseverance in the state of grace received at justification, which is at the beginning of the Christian life on earth…..Baptism is the sacrament of justification, the sacrament of the beginning of the Christian life. If one has received sanctifying grace, which is the reality of the sacrament —res sacramenti —of baptism, he only needs to persevere in that grace to be saved. ”
>> Precisely what I said above.
Good.
We agree.
“Perseverance in grace requires obedience to the Commandments of God, including the commandment to receive the sacrament of baptism. Thus there remains for him the obligation to receive baptism of water. But, this is no longer absolutely necessary (by necessity of means), since he has already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that means. It still remains necessary in virtue of our Lord’s precept to be baptized by water. When and if circumstances independent of our will prevent us from fulfilling such a precept, the principle taught by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others is to be applied: “God takes the will as the fact.” This means that God accepts the intention to receive the sacrament of baptism as equivalent to the actual reception of the sacrament.”
>> The last sentence above is wrong. It is not equivalent to the actual reception of the sacrament, since the sacrament imprints a character on the soul which the votum does not. The votum suffices to justify- if the justified man culpably refuses baptism, or does not persevere in grace, then he loses the justification, *and also lacks the means to be sacramentally absolved for his failure to persevere, since he has not been baptized*- thus there is a very important difference.
“For those too who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and are not recognized as Christians, the divine plan has provided a way of salvation.”
>> Yes indeed. It is a called “baptism”. There is no other means of salvation known to us.
“God in ways known to himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel” to the faith necessary for salvation (AG 7).”
>> This is perfectly true, and perfectly in keeping with the very same statement from the very same document:
“Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.”
There exists no contradiction between the two statements, so long as it is understood that *we know of no way at all other than baptism by which God saves us*.
We will *never ever know of any way other than baptism by which God saves us.*
God has *explicitly told us He will save us in no way other than baptism*.
These things completely grasped, it is perfectly correct to point out that God can save in ways unknown to us- this is a tautology, it is a self-evident truth.
This allows us to hope and to pray for the souls of those who die, objectively, without the visible means of salvation.
But since we can *never know any way other than baptism by which a man can be saved*- it is irrelevant in the extreme to waste a single instant of our precious time when going forth in mission to evangelize, on this tautology.
Our duty is not to philosophize, but to convert, and to save the souls of men *in the only way God has told us they can be saved*:
through baptism.
“The last sentence above is wrong”
Yes I understand that after justification through baptism by water you do not persevere in grace you must use the sacrament of penance to regain the justification, but, in the case of Baptism of Desire and “When and if circumstances independent of our will prevent us from fulfilling such a precept” the principal effect is present. Do you not receive Baptism of Desire at a time when you are unable to continue to obtain the other sacraments? I don’t see an important difference.
“Yes indeed. It is a called baptism”
I think it is clear that he is not referring to the normal method of salvation. If this was a live speech you would be heckling.
Howard:
This boils down, apparently, to what you think a Pope means.
I am sorry, I am not bound to what you think a Pope means.
I am bound to the authentic magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church, and I have, to the very best of my knowledge, faithfully defended them on this thread.
Our disagreement having vanished down to what is really only a matter of opinion concerning issues not set forth with doctrinal or dogmatic precision, and hence not binding on Catholics, I thank you for an interesting discussion.
Stacy, the “possibilities” have to refer to individual cases not the means. If not, we are left with the degree of uncertainty similar to, pigs can fly if God wants them to.
“pigs can fly if God wants them to.”
“God can save in ways unknown to us.”
Both statements are tautologies, and therefore non-controversial.
They are both obviously true, because they tell us nothing we did not know before the statements were made.
Thanks for the answers about ecumenism and the Church. I think that they make good sense.
To make sure I understand, what you are saying is that:
1. God can save in ways not revealed to us.
2. God has revealed one particular path to salvation.
3. A necessary component of God’s revealed path to salvation is that we formally become part of his Church.
Is this what you are saying?
Technical point:
pigs can fly if God wants them to.
Is not a tautology.
The statement “If God wants a pig to fly, then a pig will fly.” is false if God wants pigs to fly and they don’t. Therefore it is not a tautology.
“1. God can save in ways not revealed to us.
2. God has revealed one particular path to salvation.
3. A necessary component of God’s revealed path to salvation is that we formally become part of his Church.
Is this what you are saying?”
>> Bingo.
“Technical point:
pigs can fly if God wants them to.
Is not a tautology.
The statement “If God wants a pig to fly, then a pig will fly.” is false if God wants pigs to fly and they don’t. Therefore it is not a tautology.”
>> It is impossible for God to command a pig to fly, and the pig not to fly.
So, terms (“God”) properly defined, it seems to be a tautology after all.
It is impossible for God to command a pig to fly, and the pig not to fly.
So, terms (“God”) properly defined, it seems to be a tautology after all.
Good point.
Ace, to risk a call to “start your engines”, I will say that regarding #1 and #2, God gave us intellect. St. Thomas Aquinas used his endeavoring to uncover truths that are hidden in the fog (or bomfoggery) of human thought. We name churches, schools and children after him as an honor to that intellect.
One of the important things that John Paul said as Pope in the doc I partially quoted, was that the Church cannot think of itself as ecclesiocentric, “The Church does not exist nor does she work for herself, but is at the service of a humanity……”. This may seem to be at odds with tradition to some, and the meaning could be debated to the usual level of a gnat’s eyebrow. We seek a comfortable level of certainty while hoping for authoritative certainty coming from the Holy Spirit.
To quote from a favorite movie (I forgot the film but I remember it was a favorite), “I hope that I have made myself perfectly incomprehensible”.
Howard:
This strange word “ecclesiocentric”.
Has this word ever been employed in any teaching of any Pope, Counciol, Doctor, Father, or Sacred Scripture?
The reason I ask is……..
I would be prepared to wager a substantial sum that it hasn’t.
In other words, “ecclesiocentric” is a snarky little formulation of some professor of theology somewhere, which has been smuggled into your mind as if it were an authentic expression of Catholic teaching.
Am I wrong?
Howard, HA HA HA!
I like your response. I don’t understand it, but I like it.
It’s not a reflection on you, that I do not understand… it’s probably me.
I tried to read Ratzinger’s book on Church, Ecumenism and Politics, where he says that the Body of Christ subsists in the Church or something…
I tried to understand it, but just gave myself a headache, and gave up.
It is not that I reject your position or JPII’s/B16′s position. It’s that I don’t understand your position well enough to reject it, even if I wanted to.
“I tried to understand it, but just gave myself a headache, and gave up.”
HA!
The Church is wrestling with the aftermath of a series of cataclysms just now, Ace.
You are probably beginning to understand why things are a bit….foggy for, especially, those who choose not to follow St. Vincent’s advice to hold fast to what proceeds to us from antiquity, which cannot at this day possibly be seduced by any lying novelty.
We will get it sorted out.
The real challenge here is the decision to attempt a reformulation of the Church’s doctrine in mentally ill forms of modern philosophy, notably phenomenology.
It has been a true disaster, but the law of non-contradiction is such a stubborn thing…….we will recover.
The CCC or Catechism of the Catholic Church is the official teaching document for Catholics. During our discussion it has been quoted as an authority for a thoughts. It describes “Church” so:
751 The word “Church” (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to “call out of”) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose.139 Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people.140 By calling itself “Church,” the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is “calling together” his people from all the ends of the earth. the equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means “what belongs to the Lord.”
752 In Christian usage, the word “church” designates the liturgical assembly,141 but also the local community142 or the whole universal community of believers.143 These three meanings are inseparable. “The Church” is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ’s Body.
“The CCC or Catechism of the Catholic Church is the official teaching document for Catholics”
>> No it isn’t. The official teaching documents for Catholics are the teachings of the magisterium. The Catechism is a guide to those teachings, but it does not participate in the infallibility of Christ.
Vroom…..vroooooooom…….
ROTFL!
Someone told me when I first started participating in all the arguments Catholic have with each other online that I should get used to it. He said Catholics are like one big family, they can argue all day fiercely and then go have a beer together at night. I find that spirit to be very true! I love it!!!
Imagine the frustration of the wise and prudent Roman, who, faced with the bewildering array of religions and cults practiced by the conquered peoples under Rome’s sway, attempted the most perfectly sensible and wise (from a natural point of view) solution imaginable.
Our Roman built the Pantheon, the most sophisticated attempt at religious consilience ever known.
In the Pantheon, each god would have his day, each people would share with all others in the honor of each and all of the gods.
All were respected, all were honored, all were protected.
Only two, stubborn, intransigent cults would not acquiesce in this entirely sensible solution, from an imperial governance point of view.
The Jews.
The Christians.
Now the Jews are still here.
And the Christians are still pretty much everywhere.
Our Roman Senators and centurions?
They are probably still trying to figure out what could possibly have gone wrong with such an excellent plan.
The Catholic Faith is True, and must never, ever, be surrendered or diluted or mixed or modified or fuzzed or fogged or equivocated or watered down for any reason whatever, at any time whatever, and most especially (please God!) not at this time.