Graces From Protestant Services?

[mortify ii]

Mortify, I think a distinction must be made.  The Church teaches a Pope will never teach heresy in a definitive manner for the whole Church/ex-cathedra.  Sure, he may be found to have said something heretical (or make poor choices like kissing a book that leads a billion astray) but by faith Catholics believe the Holy Spirit will not allow the Pope to excercise his infallibility heretically. 

 

The point is it's impossible to teach heresy in a definitive matter even if all the formal terminology were used because teaching "new doctrines" is outside of the scope of infallibility. Even if a Pope said, "I solemnly define by my Apostolic authority that God is four persons and not three" that would not be an infallible act despite the words employed, and instead such a Pope would immediately depose himself for even trying to do so. Now there are cases in the past where heretical Popes either recanted or died before they could do any damage, and that surely was the work of God.

 

I was not aware the Catholic Church supports (let alone dogmatized) the teaching that some are destined to eternal hell.  Is this significantly different than Calvin's double predestination?  Also interesting point about Balthasar writing that preface.  One wonders what business a priest would have doing that...

 

Yes it is dogma and yes it does differ from the Calvinism. From Dr Ludwig Ott:

 

GOD, BY AN ETERNAL RESOLVE OF HIS WILL, PREDESTINES CERTAIN MEN, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR FORESEEN SINS, TO ETERNAL REJECTION (De fide)

 

The reality of Reprobation is not formally defined, but it is the general teaching of the Church.

 

5) POSITIVE REPROBATION

Heretical Predestinationism in its various forms (the Southern Gallic priest Lucidus in the 5th century; the monk Gottschalk in the 9th century, according to reports of his opponents, which, however, find no confirmation in his recently re-discovered writings; Wycliffe, Hus, and esp. Calvin), teaches a positive predetermination to sin, and an unconditional Predestination to the eternal punishment of hell, that is, without consideration of future demerits. This was rejected as false doctrine by the Particular Synods of Orange, Quiercy & Valence and by the Council of Trent. Unconditioned positive Reprobation leads to a denial of the universality of the Divine Desire for salvation, and of the Redemption, and contradicts the Justice and Holiness of God as well as the freedom of man.

According to the teaching of the Church, there is a conditioned positive Reprobation, that is, it occurs with consideration of foreseen future demerits (post et propter praevisa demerita). The conditional nature of Positive Reprobation is demanded by the generality of the Divine Resolve of salvation. This excludes God's desiring in advance the damnation of certain men (cf. 1 Tim 2:4, Ezek 33:11, 2 Pet 3:9) . . .

 

6) NEGATIVE REPROBATION

In the question of Reprobation, the Thomist view favours not an absolute, but only a negative Reprobation. This is conceived by most Thomists as non-election to eternal bliss (non-electio), together with the Divine resolve to permit some rational creatures to fall into sin, and thus by their own guilt to lose eternal salvation. In contrast to the absolute Positive Reprobation of the Predestinarians, Thomists insist on the universality of the Divine Resolve of Salvation and Redemption, the allocation of sufficient graces to the reprobate, and the freedom of man's will. However, it is difficult to find an intrinsic concordance between unconditioned non-election and the universality of the Divine Resolve of salvation. In practice, the unconditioned negative Reprobation of the Thomists involves the same result as the unconditioned positive Reprobation of the heretical Predestinarians, since outside Heaven and Hell there is no third final state.

Like the Resolve of Predestination the Divine Resolve of Reprobation is immutable, but, without special revelation, its incidence is unknown to men.

[Perigrina]

What do you make of this statement:

 

"In this context, it is extremely important to give a correct and fair presentation of the other Churches and ecclesial communities that the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using as means of salvation; "moreover, some, even very many, of the outstanding elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church herself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church."(85) Among other things this presentation will help Catholics to have both a deeper understanding of their own faith and a better acquaintance with and esteem for their other Christian brethren, thus facilitating the shared search for the way towards full unity in the whole truth. It should also help non-Catholics to have a better knowledge and appreciation of the Catholic Church and her conviction of being the "universal help toward salvation."

 

I think that any statement that begins with the phrase "in this context" ought to be read in context.  Your quote comes from Catechesi Tradendae section 32. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_16101979_catechesi-tradendae_en.html The immediately preceeding paragraphs are:

 

Catechesis cannot remain aloof from this ecumenical dimension, since all the faithful are called to share, according to their capacity and place in the Church, in the movement towards unity.(83)

Catechesis will have an ecumenical dimension if, while not ceasing to teach that the fullness of the revealed truths and of the means of salvation instituted by Christ is found in the Catholic Church,(84) it does so with sincere respect, in words and in deeds, for the ecclesial communities that are not in perfect communion with this Church.

 

Therefore, saying that the Spirit of Christ can use non-Catholic Christian communities as a means of salvation must not be understood as opposing our belief that the fullness of the means of salvation is found in the Catholic Church.  Perhaps an illustration will make this clearer.  I was baptized and initially taught to believe in Christ by non-Catholics.  This baptism was valid and much of what I was taught was true.  I did not have the fullness of truth or means of salvation, but the limited elements that I had were used by God to bring me to the fullness found in the Catholic Church.
 

[mortify ii]

I think that any statement that begins with the phrase "in this context" ought to be read in context.  Your quote comes from Catechesi Tradendae section 32. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_16101979_catechesi-tradendae_en.html The immediately preceeding paragraphs are:

 

Therefore, saying that the Spirit of Christ can use non-Catholic Christian communities as a means of salvation must not be understood as opposing our belief that the fullness of the means of salvation is found in the Catholic Church.  Perhaps an illustration will make this clearer.  I was baptized and initially taught to believe in Christ by non-Catholics.  This baptism was valid and much of what I was taught was true.  I did not have the fullness of truth or means of salvation, but the limited elements that I had were used by God to bring me to the fullness found in the Catholic Church.
 

 

I'm glad you agree that the Protestant community you were brought up in was not a means to salvation, but rather a means to Catholicism. 

[Perigrina]

I'm glad you agree that the Protestant community you were brought up in was not a means to salvation, but rather a means to Catholicism. 

 

I am not sure what distinction you are making here.  In this context, Catholicism and salvation are pretty much synonymous.
 

[Eliakim]

Quite probably. Need we make that effort?

 

I challenge you to find one or two.  I have not been able.  That is why I also suspect Fr. Barron's statement that Origen and Irenaeus said grace can exist outside communion with the Church.  If you succeed I will click 'give props'. 

 

The typical unsatisfactory example brought forward is Justin Martyr stating Fathers/good pagans before Christ's Sacrfice could get to heaven if they followed God/natural law. 

 

Mortify,

I don't think that would work with Vatican One's formula that the pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from making error in defining faith and morals for the whole Church.  So I believe your example of a pope speaking ex-cathedra on 4 natures of God would have to be followed as dogma if he ever did that.  Otherwise I believe we must assume the Lord will strike a Pope dead before it happens. 

 

E

 

 

Edited May 14, 2014 by Eliakim

[Nihil Obstat]

Welp, we have explicitly clear teaching on baptism of desire.
 

Article 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?

Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."

Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

So, what needs to be demonstrated is whether or not this desire can be implicit. Quite frankly, I think reason alone is sufficient to demonstrate that. But obviously that is not what you want.
Aquinas seemed to advocate an early version of implicit faith in the second part of the second book of the Summa, question 2 article 7.
 

Reply to Objection 3. Many of the gentiles received revelations of Christ, as is clear from their predictions. Thus we read (Job 19:25): "I know that my Redeemer liveth." The Sibyl too foretold certain things about Christ, as Augustine states (Contra Faust. xiii, 15). Moreover, we read in the history of the Romans, that at the time of Constantine Augustus and his mother Irene a tomb was discovered, wherein lay a man on whose breast was a golden plate with the inscription: "Christ shall be born of a virgin, and in Him, I believe. O sun, during the lifetime of Irene and Constantine, thou shalt see me again" [Cf. Baron, Annal., A.D. 780. If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: "Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth."
 

I consider that sufficient proof. Baptism by desire is clearly traditional, and an implicit faith in Christ is possible under some circumstances.

[Eliakim]

Welp, we have explicitly clear teaching on baptism of desire [...]
So, what needs to be demonstrated is whether or not this desire can be implicit. Quite frankly, I think reason alone is sufficient to demonstrate that. But obviously that is not what you want.
Aquinas seemed to advocate an early version of implicit faith in the second part of the second book of the Summa, question 2 article 7.
 

Reply to Objection 3. Many of the gentiles received revelations of Christ, as is clear from their predictions. Thus we read (Job 19:25): "I know that my Redeemer liveth." The Sibyl too foretold certain things about Christ, as Augustine states (Contra Faust. xiii, 15). Moreover, we read in the history of the Romans, that at the time of Constantine Augustus and his mother Irene a tomb was discovered, wherein lay a man on whose breast was a golden plate with the inscription: "Christ shall be born of a virgin, and in Him, I believe. O sun, during the lifetime of Irene and Constantine, thou shalt see me again" [Cf. Baron, Annal., A.D. 780. If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: "Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth."
 

I consider that sufficient proof. Baptism by desire is clearly traditional, and an implicit faith in Christ is possible under some circumstances.

 

Like Justin Martyr's quote, does this not also only apply to those before Christ?  Certainly not to Protestants or other non-Catholics who have come long after, it seems.  I believe God does save all His followers regardless of whether or not they are in communion with Rome, however I cannot back this up with anything before Pius IX, and it seems Pius IX did an about face when the age of modernity was growing strong. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Like Justin Martyr's quote, does this not also only apply to those before Christ?  Certainly not to Protestants or other non-Catholics who have come long after, it seems.  I believe God does save all His followers regardless of whether or not they are in communion with Rome, however I cannot back this up with anything before Pius IX, and it seems Pius IX did an about face when the age of modernity was growing strong. 

I see no strong reason that this should be the case. Compare some non-Jew before the birth of Christ in some far corner of the world, to a kid, let us say born in the early 1990s, growing up in North Korea where there literally is no Church. Fundamentally they are in the same position, with no access to Revelation, no access to the graces of the Church. Referring back to Aquinas, neither of our examples have received any revelation. But if they both have faith in the salvific power of God...

Essentially, I see no reason that the gentiles pre-Incarnation are in a fundamentally different position from non-Christians of today who have never had the true Church presented to them in an effective manner.

[Eliakim]

I see no strong reason that this should be the case. Compare some non-Jew before the birth of Christ in some far corner of the world, to a kid, let us say born in the early 1990s, growing up in North Korea where there literally is no Church. Fundamentally they are in the same position, with no access to Revelation, no access to the graces of the Church. Referring back to Aquinas, neither of our examples have received any revelation. But if they both have faith in the salvific power of God...

Essentially, I see no reason that the gentiles pre-Incarnation are in a fundamentally different position from non-Christians of today who have never had the true Church presented to them in an effective manner.

 

I agree with you, but I just do not see the Church teaching this until Pius IX. 

 

Even Aquinas does not unpack his quote like you and I are doing in order to make it fit...

 

E

[Nihil Obstat]

I agree with you, but I just do not see the Church teaching this until Pius IX.

Even Aquinas does not unpack his quote like you and I are doing in order to make it fit...

E

And that represents the correct understanding of how doctrine can develop. There is nothing new in this. Only a deeper understanding of what was already fully present.
Although quite frankly, Aquinas was smart enough that I have no doubt he also saw this as being clearly implicated by his own teaching.

[LouisvilleFan]

You may be surprised. Care to guess?

 

Why not... Pope Benedict XVI?
 

[LouisvilleFan]

Why not... Pope Benedict XVI?
 

 

Never mind... I googled it (wouldn't be any fun to do that the first time).

[Nihil Obstat]

Highly worthwhile read, imo.

[LouisvilleFan]

Highly worthwhile read, imo.

 

Yeah, those issues with parishes in Europe allowing Buddha statues and other such nonsense was probably a bigger stumbling block to my conversion than praying to Mary :)  Good article. I'm on board with Archbishop Lefebvre with that one, although not so much with the SSPX in general.