Novus ordo strikes again

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

"Fr." Perricone announced today, from the pulpit of his Novus Ordo parish, that he would be assuming the responsibilities of pastor at St. Anthony of Padua Chapel, the once-independent Roman Catholic Chapel of the late Fr. Paul Wickens. In light of this, the Board continues to deny that the Archdiocese has taken control. Imagine: the local Novus Ordo parish announces this from their pulpit, but the very parishioners of St. Anthony's are still told that nothing has been decided yet. Jake; what is going to happn to your chapel after these novus ordo riders take over? Fr. Wickens threw Archbishop Gerety out of his hospital room TWICE when the Novus Ordinarian came to "reconcile" Fr. Wickens to the Novus Ordo. How is then, that this happened? Within TWO WEEKS after Fr. Wickens' death, the Board approached the Novus Ordo Archdiocese and sold out the legacy of St. Anthony's Chapel.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 08, 2004

Answers

Maybe they learned from the episcopal Church in Los angeles. When those churches which dissented wer taken over this Summer.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 08, 2004.

TC

another recent abuse is the use of the Shrine at Fatima by animists and buddhists and others. can anyone really argue that this would have been allowed to happen before VII?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 09, 2004.


Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 09, 2004.

i read it in the Catholic Herald.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 09, 2004.

Hi Ian, I think I read somewhere that the priest overseeing the Shrine of Fatima was "released" from his duties at the shrine very recently.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), November 09, 2004.



i get emails from the Fatima Center.

here are some extracts from an email of 14 October 2004:

"Correio da manha, the leading daily newspaper in Portugal, caused an uproar in the Catholic world when it reported in a front page article in its September 29 issue that "Rome is shocked with Fatima." According to the newspaper, the Vatican "is critical of the prayers offered by the Dalai Lama and those of a Hindu priest in the Shrine" and has announced to the Portuguese Episcopal Conference (PEC) that they must replace the Bishop of Fatima and the Shrine Rector. If not, the paper reported, the Vatican will assume direct control of the Fatima shrine."

.............

"The current controversy first erupted last October when the Bishop of Fatima, D. Serafim Ferreira e Silva and Monsignor Guerra hosted an ecumenical conference at the Shrine of Our Lady. The conference, which featured participants from diverse religious bodies, including Buddhists, Muslims and African animists, was followed by press reports of a proposed plan to transform the Fatima Shrine into an "interfaith facility." "

............

"The controversy was further inflamed this May when, in apparent defiance of the protests, Msgr. Guerra permitted a group of Hindu worshipers from Lisbon to perform a pagan ceremony on the altar of the chapel of Our Lady on the very spot where the Virgin Mary appeared between May and October 1917."

............

"To date, the Vatican has neither confirmed nor denied the reports that it is asking for the removal of Fatima's bishop and Shrine Rector Guerra."

for this to appear in the Catholic Herald, an English [ie liberal] paper, and for them to state that the Vatican is indeed asking for the removal of Fatima's bishop and Shrine Rector, speaks volumes.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 09, 2004.


a Papal envoy is also reported to have already left Rome for the Shrine.

things must be bad.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 09, 2004.


It is odd for the pope to be upset about the Fatima shrine affair, when he visits animists, synagogues, Lutherans, and all the rest. He held the two meetings at

assissi with the same people, even allowing Budhha to be placed on the tabernacle. Kissing the Koran did not do anything positive for the faith. Was not Fatima the end result of all this. Even the roof caving in at Assissi was not enough of a message.

assissi with the same people, even allowing Budhha to be placed on the tabernacle. Kissing the Koran did not do anything positive for the faith. Was not Fatima the end result of all this?

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 09, 2004.


TC

i agree.

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q7_pope.htm

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 10, 2004.


Conference to assess 40 years of ecumenism

Rome, Nov. 10 (CWNews.com) - Marking the 40th anniversary of the Vatican decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio (doc) , the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity is organizing an international conference for November 11- 13.

The conference, to be held at Rocca di Papa, southeast of Rome, will bring together Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant representatives to discuss the ecumenical goals set by the Vatican Council, and the subsequent steps toward those goals. Over 250 people will participate, including representatives of 104 different episocopal conferences, the Eastern Catholic patriarchates, 27 Orthodox churches, and various other Christian groups.

Cardinal Walter Kasper (bio - news), the president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, will host the conference and deliver an opening address. Other leading prelates taking part in the event include Cardinal Ivan Dias of Bombay and Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor of Westminster. The participants will join in an ecumenical Vespers service on November 13 in St. Peter's Basilica, with Pope John Paul II (bio - news) presiding.

In announcing plans for the conference, Cardinal Kasper reminded reporters of the opening lines from Unitatis Redintegratio : "The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only."

The struggle to restore Christian unity has seen great progress since 1964, the cardinal said. But he acknowledged that imposing barriers remain, including "on the one hand a relativism and qualitative post-modern pluralism," and "on the other, an aggressive fundamentalism."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 11, 2004.



what is "qualitative post-modern pluralism"?

and whatever happened to "Catholicism"?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 11, 2004.


Whatever happened to "I pray to Thee Father, that all may be one"

"Other sheep I have that are not of this fold, those too I must bring"

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 11, 2004.


Wouldn't that be the goal of "real" ecumenism?

Not universalism and relativism.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 11, 2004.


Andy. The ecumenical movement which comes from Rome will weaken the Church more and more. It is pure heresy. Here is one writers views;

courtship between the WCC and the Roman Catholics. "Roman Catholic bishops from around the world met in an Ecumenical Council at the Vatican from 1962-1965. They revised the Catholic liturgy, and have updated the church in several areas in an effort to bring the Protestants back into the fold. In the higher echelons of Catholicism, Protestants are no longer called 'heretics' but are referred to as 'separated brethren'. It should be noted that this procedure has not reached the grass roots level in some areas. Booklets are being distributed to Catholic laymen on 'ecumenical etiquette'. Each year million of leaflets, 'Week of Prayer for Christian Unity' are distributed. Catholics and Protestants are having joint communion services. They undertake joint projects for social activities, and even have joint folk-singing programmes. One of the biggest drives toward unity is the amalgamation of Catholic and Protestant seminaries. NOTE PAST SENTENCE; For the first time in history Roman Catholic churches are joining city church council... The leaders of World Council and the leaders of Rome are working together for a union of these two bodies. No fewer than 39 representatives of Protestant churches have been received by the Pope. The Archbishop of Canterbury was the first Anglican primate to visit a Pope in 400 years. Official Roman Catholic documents are beginning to use the term 'church' to describe Protestant churches. A Lutheran professor has urged all Protest- ants to reunite with Roman Catholicism, which he described as their 'ecclesiastical homeland'." (Quoted from The Ecumenical Movement by H.Duncan).

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 11, 2004.


Andy; here is something else to consider. One reason why I will not go to the new priests for Mass or confession..There is too much doubt, and when the soul is on the line there is too much at stake.

http://www.catholictradition.org/melchisedech-chp7.htm

-- TC (222@333.com), November 11, 2004.



There doesn't seem to be any doubt among Catholics. Only among schismatics. Wonder why?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 11, 2004.

Pau;,

You bet on your hose and I'll bet on mine.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 11, 2004.


That's horse

-- TC (wwww@wwww.cim), November 11, 2004.

It has been held that Anglican holy orders (priesthood) is not valid.

Ecumenism, if seen as cooperation against common evils, serves a valid purpose. False ecumenism, as practiced by John Paul II and others, serves satanic purposes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS: Pope John-Paul II preaches in a Lutheran church (Dec.11, 1983), recited psalms with Jews while visiting the synagogue of Rome (April 13, 1986) and then invites Catholics and Jews to prepare together for the coming of the Messiah (June 24, 1986), engaged in dialogues with the high priests and witch doctors of Voodoo (Feb. 4 1993); takes part in Animist rites in the "Sacred Forest" in Togo (Aug. 8, 1985); has the sacred Tilac put on his forehead, a custom originating with priestesses of Shiva in Bombay (Feb. 2,1986); invited representatives of all the "main religions" (about 130 came) to Assisi to pray for (worldly) peace (Oct. 27, 1986). And everywhere and with all he praises their "values" but fails to tell them — That they and their people must convert if they want to be saved. THEREFORE, BOTH IN WORD AND DEED, HE IS PREACHING THAT ALL MEN OF WHATEVER CREED ARE ACCEPTABLE TO GOD, which is contrary to Catholic dogma.

There is no doubt that this pope is a heretic and apostate

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 12, 2004.


T-C,

Do you recognize any pope or bishop?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 13, 2004.


Pius XII, and maybe John 23rd. Cum ex Apostolatus answers that question if it is sincerely studied. John Paul II helped write Lumen Gentius, and Gaudium et Spes. Both are heretial and were condemned by Pius IX in syllabus of errors and other popes. Especially that Cum Ex.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 13, 2004.

http://www.pax-et-veritas.org/Popes/pius_ix/syllabus.htm

Especially note 9- 13- 15- 17- 18

-- TC (Treadmill234@siuth.com), November 13, 2004.


The Banner of the UN Human Rights Committee Now Forcing Poland to Rescind Laws against Abortion and Gay Marriage Only in the Church of the New Order. Isn't it interesting that the pope who is supposed to be anti-abortion is supporting the United Nations, which is compelling nations to rescind anti-abortion laws? Isn't it interesting that the pope's own homeland is being singled out for its anti-abortion laws? Will the pope's words shake to its foundations that institution pandering to Modernism and Liberalism across the world, not to speak of totalitarianism?

It seems that the United Nations Human Rights Committee concluded a review on Poland's compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and, in a November 4 statement, was blunt in demanding that Poland legalize abortion. "The State Party should liberalize its legislation and practice on abortion," it said.

The Committee reiterated its "deep concern about restrictive abortion laws in Poland" and also pushed contraception and sex- education. "The State party should assure the availability of contraceptives and free access to family planning services and methods. The Ministry of Education should ensure that schools include accurate and objective sexual education in their curricula," said the report.

Not content to pander abortion, contraception, and sex education, the UN Committee went on to push for "gay marriage." "The Committee is concerned that the right of sexual minorities not to be discriminated against is not fully recognized and that discriminatory acts and attitudes against persons on the ground of sexual orientation are not adequately investigated and punished."

Remember that in 2001 the United States, the world's greatest democracy and leading force for human rights, was excluded from the United Nations Human Rights Committee. As Congressman Lantos put it at the time: "It is absurd that rogue states and chronic human rights abusers such as Libya, Sudan, and Cuba remain on the Committee and sit in judgement on the human rights practices of others, while the U.S. now stands on the sidelines."

One spokesman said that the report was a "UN attack on the sovereignty of Poland." We agree -- and more. It's an attack upon humanity. This United Nations has outlived its usefulness, just as Wilson's League of Nations did. Let's take back its land and build a memorial the Victims of Terrorism, which that United Nations has done nothing effective to stop.

But don't wait for JPII to do anything. He's in bed politically with the One-World New Order Regime and won't bite the hand that feeds his philosophy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

November 14 - Twenty-fourt

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 13, 2004.


TC,

I'll read Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors. Thanks for the link.

I disagree with your assesssment of John Paul II. His writings all indicate that he very much against abortion, artificial contraception, and gay marrage. I know you think he's one of them, but the Modernists in the Church don't like him at all.

Do you recognize any bishops?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 13, 2004.


Andy;

I only recogize bishops made before V2. I doubt that any are left. Only the traditionals have kept the line valid. At least in my opinion. I could go to confession to an older priest ordained in the old rite before 1968.

The Lefebvre line, Thuc line, De Castro line etc.

Yes JP talks about abortion, gays etc, but do you hear any of it from the pulpit in the novus ordo masses?

I do hear it from the traditional pulpits, plus the last 4 things, Death,judgement Heaven, Hell.

I would doubt that you hear of these things in The Novus Ordo funeral mass, ( and I use to go to them), talk about how great a a guy he was, and he is looking down on us etc. Not a mention of praying for his soul.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 14, 2004.


TC,

It depends on the priest. I actually heard a good homily on the evils of abortion and the importance for perseverance for salvation. He went into why we need to be prepared for martyrdom too.

I agree that too many homilies can be "feel good" types of things, but these are due to the individual priest.

IMHO, the reason some priests and bishops don't take a stand against abortion, contraception, and other evils is because of their personal failings rather than a lack of valid ordination or apostolic succession.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 14, 2004.


In fact, I heard that homily just this morning.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 14, 2004.

Valid ordinations are a whole'nother story. I supposeyou take your pick and go with it.

I have never talked anyone out of their beliefs and probably never will but I have to keep trying.

Wen someone told me about this I bushed them off, but it made me do some searching and I said "Know something?.... they are right.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 14, 2004.


I've got some searching to do myself TC. Thanks for bringing up these questions.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 14, 2004.

TC

how can you "recognise" Pius IX when he said this in Quanto conficiamur moerore:

We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the recepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace. For God, Who reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men, will not permit, in accordance with His infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal torments (suppliciis).

he is teaching invincible ignorance.

or Pius Pope St. Pius X who taught this:

A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church.

ditto.

or Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis:

From a heart overflowing with love, we ask each and every one of them [non-Catholics] to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.

ditto.

this is not what Trent taught.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 15, 2004.


correction, Pius XII is teaching indifference.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 15, 2004.

There is a vast difference between the belief that all religions are equal (indifference) and the belief that God, if it is His will, can save someone who through no fault of his own is a sincere follower of an inferior religion (invincible ignorance). To reject indifference is to accept the Word of God and the teaching of His Church. To reject invincible ignorance is to reject the all-loving, all-merciful nature of God as definitively taught by His Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 15, 2004.

how can you "recognise" Pius IX when he said this in Quanto conficiamur moerore:

We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the recepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace. For God, Who reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men, will not permit, in accordance with His infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal torments (suppliciis).

he is teaching invincible ignorance

As I read it Pius IX says that they CAN attain eternal life, not that they SHALL attain eternal life. Yes God works in mysterious ways, but what I object to is people trying to explain HOW God will do it. They talk about 3 baptisms etc. Why not leave it to God. We do not try to explain Transubstition do we?

Andy; You are welcome.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 15, 2004.


3 things Paul

1. indifference does not require religious equivalence. rather it is enough to be "indifferent" for one to hold that salvation can be obtained in faith systems other than the Catholic Church, provided that the person in question is "good and decent". that's how the Popes have taught it.

2. equally, invincible ignorance is not just, according to modern teaching, available to "a sincere follower of an inferior religion": it seems to be available to any man whose morals are good and decent, whether or not he believes in God. LG extends this ignorance to: "... those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at any explicit knowledge of God and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life.").

3. moreover, whilst these are separate concepts, they are connected inasmuch as they drive coach and horses through the Catholic Dogma, thrice infallibly defined, that Outside the Church there is no Salvation. the invincibly ignorant is "deemed" to be Catholic, even though he has never been baptised and indeed may well not believe in God; the "good" person belonging to the church that only possesses X% of the truth (where X< 100%) is given salvation via a rubric that argues that he is saved by/ through the Church. EENS has now been reduced to a condemnation of "they ... who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it".

in any event, it was not the point of my post to explicitly connect them -- other than to suggest to TC that perhaps other Popes had made the types of modern errors (ecumenism, indifference, universalism, etc) that we see in the modern Church.

i just wanted to see how rigorously TC applied his test of orthodoxy. that's all.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 15, 2004.


Thats Transubstantiation;

As far as Pius XII says, if it does not jibe with Cantate Domino, he is wrong.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com)), November 15, 2004.


noted and agreed, TC.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 15, 2004.

OK. See if this reasoning is correct or not.

1. Cantate Domino states that: It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

2. Everyone baptised as a Christian is a really member of the Catholic Church until they reject the Church. They have received sanctifying grace until they commit mortal sin, or is there another way to lose sanctifying grace?

3. Mortal sin destroys God's charity in our soul. A person dying in the state of mortal sin is condemned to Hell. This person has lost sanctifying grace.

4. CCC 1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

5. Heretics and schismatics are such because they were baptised into the Church, but then either reject certain truths or the authority of the Church.

Now, the questions.

Did the Council of Florence state that heretics and schismatics are condemned because these people are in a state of mortal sin?

If so, then wouldn't they also need "full knowledge and deliberate consent" in order to be damned?

If that is true, then would people born into schism and heresy necessarily meet this condition of mortal sin and thus be damned?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 15, 2004.


Have noted the very important difference between CAN and SHALL.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 15, 2004.

and the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

The Popes through the centuries have defended the doctrine "outside the Church there is no salvation. Here is small reference of their teachings on the matter:

Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 - 590): "Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. ...Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. ...Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. ... [If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church." (Denzinger 246-247)

Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 - 604): "Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved." (Moralia)

Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 - 1216): "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved." (Denzinger 423)

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 - 1829): "We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. ...For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'" (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 - 1846): "It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved." (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): "It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood." (Denzinger 1647)

Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 - 1903): "This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church." (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus)

"He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God." (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae)

Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 - 1914): "It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation." (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane)

Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 - 1922): "Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)

Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 - 1939): "The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. ...Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)

Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 - 1958): "By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth." (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)

Then, as though to set this constant teaching of the Fathers, Doctors and Popes "in concrete," so to speak, we have the following definitions from the Solemn Magisterium of the Church:

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved..."

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): "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 Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): "[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

These popes all agree, and they do not leave an escape hatch



-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com)), November 15, 2004.


Yes God works in mysterious ways, but what I object to is people trying to explain HOW God will do it. They talk about 3 baptisms etc. Why not leave it to God. We do not try to explain Transubstition do we? -TC

Very good point TC. We can leave open the possibility of God's extraordinary actions without having to know exactly HOW he does it. I would like to know why the Church has taught there is "no salvation outside the Church" and how it's connected to other teachings, such as mortal sin and sanctifying grace. I think this might help understand it better.

In reference to your more recent post, IMO all the quotes you provided clearly show that the Church has taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

The question I have is, WHY is there no salvation outside the church and under what conditions?

I can see three potential reasons for this to be true:

1. Baptism (and through it, initial justification and sanctifying grace) can only be obtained through the Church.

2. Those who have been baptised and reject the Church's teachings and her authority commit mortal sin.

3. Those who have been baptised and commit mortal sin, can only renew their friendship with God (obtain sanctifying grace) within the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Within this framework, is it possible for one who has been validly baptised, but raised in ignorance of the Catholic Church to obtain salvation?

Or maybe I'm missing the real reason that there is no salvation outside the Church.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 15, 2004.


Some additional points to consider:

1. I believe the Church recognizes Baptism as long as water, the Trinitarian formula and the intent is the same.

2. Can one commit a mortal sin if they do not have "full knowledge"? Is heresy a mortal sin if one is not even aware that they are a heretic (i.e., they aren't aware the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ)?

3. In the case of "perfect" contrition, one can be forgiven if they are unable to confess to a priest before death. But does this count if one is not aware that the sacrament is necessary (as in the case of most Protestants)?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 15, 2004.


[Correction made, see below.]

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 15, 2004.

What if a person is not even aware of what the Church teaches, or has been misinformed?

-- Andy S ("ask333@yahoo.com"), November 15, 2004.

Is that person culpable for the sin of heresy or schism?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 15, 2004.

Those are some tough questions Andy. I have to do some more research on this.

Maybe Ian can give some input. I hope so.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 15, 2004.


Thanks TC. I appreciate any time you, Ian, and anyone else can spend helping me understand how it all fits together.

In the mean time, I've got some research and most importantly, prayer to do myself.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 16, 2004.


Especially good answer about the prayer Andy. I miss too many rosaries doing this. Got to cut down on computer and more time on prayer.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 16, 2004.

I'm with you on that TC.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 16, 2004.

Andy

me thinks that you are trying to develop some kind of unifying theory of Catholicism. ie you are tying EENS into other doctrine such as Sin and Baptism.

i'm not convinced that that is possible.

EENS is, imho, a by product of the requirement of Unity.

there can be no Unity where there is heresy and schism. equally there is no Unity where there is ignorance, even if that ignorance is inculpable.

is this not an alternative way of looking at it?

EENS is in any event not qualified by knowledge of one's heresy or schism. it is self-standing.

had Eugene IV wanted to carve out the man on the desert island, he would have.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 17, 2004.


me thinks that you are trying to develop some kind of unifying theory of Catholicism. ie you are tying EENS into other doctrine such as Sin and Baptism. - Ian

You're absolutely right, Ian. Although I'm not sure that my line of thinking is either correct, or possible.

My faith does not depend on tying it all together. As I said before (and TC made the point) that there are certain things we simply do not/cannot understand. That's why its faith. I think that Emerald made the point it might actually be a blessing not to understand the things of faith intellectually. I'm beginning to agree.

Here is my struggle. Maybe I am making it all too basic, but my understanding of Catholic theology is that sanctifying grace is necessary for eternal life. If we die without that grace we are damned. We receive sanctifying grace only from the Trinity, through Christ's Church. Initial justification comes from Baptism. We "lose" that grace and become spiritually dead when we commit mortal sin.

Now I wonder how disunity affects the sanctifying grace that dwells within us? I can see how outside the Church (without valid sacraments) that sanctifying grace cannot be "renewed". That without Confession we may not become spiritually alive after our soul becomes dead through mortal sin (cf, 1 John 5:16). But what about "full knowledge" that is required to destroy sanctifying grace?

This is what I struggle with regarding EENS. I think the "unifying theory" may already be there in the writings of great the Church Fathers. Guided by the Holy Spirit, they probably thought all this stuff out already. EENS may flow from doctrine on sanctifying grace and sin. Maybe separating EENS from other doctrines, such as sanctifying grace and mortal sin, are really just artificial distinctions.

If EENS means there is no salvation unless one is a member of the Catholic Church, would that mean that sanctifying grace is destroyed in those souls outside the Church because they are not members of the Church? Can one lose sanctifying grace by not joining the Catholic Church (and without "full knowldege that she is the Church of Christ)? Or is it necessary to commit mortal sin to lose this grace of initial justification in God's eyes?

I'm certainly no theologian. Just thinking out loud.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 17, 2004.


Since EENS really flows from the requirement for Unity, maybe the requirement for Unity flows from the ultimate need for sanctifying grace to obtain eternal life with God.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 17, 2004.

You people are doing the most thoughtful and honest discussion of these things I've ever seen.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 17, 2004.

Andy;

I believe that the teaching of the Church is that all of us, both Catholic and Protestant, and others for that matter, receive actuall grace.

To me that translates into the gospel of St. John, that God enlightens all men. What they do with that light is the question. If they ask for more of it, God will gladly furnish it. Unfortunately, too many let that light go out. Why? Who knows.

All I can say is I follow the three infallible teacings that say EENS. I don't question it or challenge it, I just accept it.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com),), November 17, 2004.


"I believe that the teaching of the Church is that all of us, both Catholic and Protestant, and others for that matter, receive actuall grace."

Yeah that's right; it is a species of actaul grace which is technically called prevenient grace. It is the kind of grace that motivates a soul to come into the Church.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), November 17, 2004.


The term I was searching for when I spoke of sanctifying grace in my previous posts is habitual grace. This is defined as "a constant supernatural quality of the soul which sanctifies man intrinsically and makes him just and pleasing to God." -Ott

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 17, 2004.

Maybe I missed it, but could someone fill me in? What is EENS??

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 17, 2004.

Sorry Emily. It's a Latin acronym for "outside the church there is no salvation." I think the Latin words are "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus".

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 17, 2004.

Thanks Andy! You're a gem :)

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 17, 2004.

Andy

he's another take:

Lord Jesus says: "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters"

well, consider that in light of the Doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ.

if you are a Pagan, or you do not accept the Divinity of Our Lord or, you are not baptised, or you are blissfully unware of the Gospels,...., are you "with"? ie are you "within" the ONE Mystical Body of Christ?

PS you're a far, far better theologian than I!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 18, 2004.


Ian,

Thanks for the compliment. It means a lot. Especially since I think that you're much better at this stuff than I.

I see what you're saying and your point is well taken. That may be the part that I'm missing.

At the risk of taking Scripture out of context (not intentionally), I offer these words of Christ as food for thought:

Mar 9:38-40

John answered him, saying: Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us: and we forbade him. But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name and can soon speak ill of me. For he that is not against you is for you.

Maybe the context of this passage is different than the subject we're discussing. I'm presenting it, because it seems it might apply.

But then how does it fit in with the quote you offered and in the context of this discussion? I'll have to reflect on that a bit.

Maybe the difference is:

"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters"

and

"For he that is not against you is for you."

Not sure.

-- Andy S ("ask33342004@yahoo.com"), November 18, 2004.


that was funny Andy!

private interpretation of Scripture. aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh. i deserve to be shot getting caught out playing that game.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 18, 2004.


That saying of Jesus applies to me,too.

Most pople think just because I don't accept Jesus as a Christian I am going....to ...

but as Jesus states, since I am not against his message, then I am with him!!!!

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 18, 2004.


"Most pople think just because I don't accept Jesus as a Christian I am going....to ... "

NO, NO, NO,...., Elpidio.

the modern Catholic is pretty indifferent about these things nowadays.

you beliefs are probably more Catholic than the Moslems.

when you produce your Catechism, be sure that the Pope will be lining up to kiss it.

that's the issue.

the "I am going....to ..." bit has been removed from our Dogma.

anyways, i am absolutely convinced that Jesus loves you dearly no matter how you regard His status.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 18, 2004.


Actually Ian, upon further reflection, I think your quote from Scripture was more in context than mine.

In my quote, Jesus was telling the apostles not to stop someone from doing good in His name. That would be like the Catholic Church trying to stop the Baptists from feeding the poor. I don't think it says anything about doctrinal unity.

Your quote was more applicable to what unity is, IMO.

I think I may take a break from this stuff for a little while. Besides my head hurting, I fear I'm getting way out of my element. I guess that's not necessarily a bad thing though.

Your comment about private interpretation of Scripture makes me wonder. Am I privately interpreting Church teaching and infallible papal bulls and encyclicals?

I think it's time to reflect in prayer on what I've learned from everyone. Thanks for the great discussion!

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 18, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ