EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 (edited) catholicguy, None of the quotes in your link address the invincibly ignorant, they only address heretics and schismatics (my article also contains quotes from the same Fathers quoted in the RomanCatholicism.org article). And even if one isn't a physical member of the Church upon death, the New Catechism says their salvation is still accomplished through the Church, not outside of it. The RomanCatholicism.org quotes don't contradict the New Catechism (CCC 846). Edited August 30, 2004 by thedude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 I'd make the sacrifice and then get baptised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hananiah Posted August 30, 2004 Author Share Posted August 30, 2004 [quote name='thedude' date='Aug 30 2004, 04:13 PM'] Hananiah, I am interested in the difference between your view of EENS and the majority of Phatmass members. If you could state the differences, I would be intrigued to read them. I say this because reading about EENS (purely by accident) put me on my track from ignorance of my faith to orthodoxy. [/quote] Alright, I'll summarize it. Hopefully at some point in the future I will be able to produce a detailed exposition which quotes the relevant Magisterial documents. 1) The salvation of one who has never heard of Christ or His Church requires the formal repudiation of the errors of their previous belief system (Paganism, Islam, etc.). 2) Those who explicitly reject the Catholic Church (i.e. the vast majority of Protestants and Eastern Orthodox) are excluded from her pale. They are not implicit members or members in any way shape or form. 3) Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is properly interpreted as "outside the Church there is no salvation" not "without the Church there is no salvation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 [quote name='Hananiah' date='Aug 30 2004, 06:12 PM'] Alright, I'll summarize it. Hopefully at some point in the future I will be able to produce a detailed exposition which quotes the relevant Magisterial documents. 1) The salvation of one who has never heard of Christ or His Church requires the formal repudiation of the errors of their previous belief system (Paganism, Islam, etc.). 2) Those who explicitly reject the Catholic Church (i.e. the vast majority of Protestants and Eastern Orthodox) are excluded from her pale. They are not implicit members or members in any way shape or form. 3) Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is properly interpreted as "outside the Church there is no salvation" not "without the Church there is no salvation." [/quote] So, then, you say it is impossible to be saved by inculpable ignorance, then, correct? Inculpable ignorance neither saves nor condemns. Is that your stance? Moreover, do you believe in implicit "baptism" of desire? I am not as much against those who believe in explicit baptism of desire/blood as much the "implicit" desire. The former is at least substantiated by the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas with rational explanations (however, I do reject the theories of more than one Baptism, which are not a teaching of the Church and are in fact rejected outright by Her: "If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema (St. John iii. 5)" Can. II on Baptism, Council of Trent). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 They aren't multiple Baptisms, and the New Catechism agrees (CCC 1258). And I believe he is saying that an inculpably ignorant person can be saved. Hananiah, Thank you for stating your view. I don't really see how it is different from the majority of Phatmass members though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 (edited) [quote name='thedude' date='Aug 30 2004, 07:10 PM'] They aren't multiple Baptisms [/quote] BAPTISM of desire and BAPTISM of blood? If it's not an actual Baptism, it sure sounds like a metaphor talked about at the Council of Trent. Edited August 30, 2004 by CatholicCrusader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Read my article I posted above. It has quotations from the Fathers on the issue. I've seen Feeneyite quotations against Baptism of blood, and they all refer to martyred heretics, not invincibly ignorant persons or catechumens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 If the quotes don't mention invicible ignorance, then they shouldn't be taken to assume invincible ignorance. The Church NEVER made any "exceptions" in Her three ex Cathedra proclamations of the doctrine. NEVER. She never said this and this unless you are invicibly ignorant. You can't just assume invincible ignorance in that case. Unless it is outright stated, it is not supported. Because NO ONE means NO ONE, unless a qualifier is added. No qualifers were added. One indeed is teh universal Church outside of which NO ONE AT ALL can be saved." Lateran Council IV. You see, no qualifiers. The same is true of Florence and the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I was talking about the Patristic quotes, not the Papal ones (and your right, they don't mention the invincebly ignorant, so it cannot be assumed that they are condemned). I think it is easy to see that they are all addressed at heretics and schismatics. The New Catechism doesn't say there is salvation outside the Church, it says that an outsider can be saved (meeting certain conditions) THROUGH the Church (which wouldn't be outside). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 (edited) Again, read my article posted above (I read the RomanCatholicism.org one). It lays out my sources. Edited August 31, 2004 by thedude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 [quote name='thedude' date='Aug 30 2004, 09:29 PM'] (and your right, they don't mention the invincebly ignorant, so it cannot be assumed that they are condemned). I think it is easy to see that they are all addressed at heretics and schismatics. [/quote] 1) A. What I said was if it doesn't mention the inculpably ignorant as an exception to the rule, then they, too, would be included as outside the Church because B. Florence makes clear: unless BEFORE DEATH THEY ARE JOINED TO HER. If they are joined to Her somehow before death, that means if they were to be baptized validly (by water), then it would be useless because they were already somehow joined to the Church, which obviously they weren't since they weren't baptized validly (by water). 2) Yes, it is addressing heretics. A heretic is one who does not believe what the Church teaches, whether it is a material or formal heretic. The inculpably ignorant are also heretics because they reject the Church's teaching, whether they know it or not matters not. 3) What did I say about romancatholicism.org? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hananiah Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 [quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Aug 30 2004, 05:34 PM'] So, then, you say it is impossible to be saved by inculpable ignorance, then, correct? Inculpable ignorance neither saves nor condemns. Is that your stance? [/quote] Yes, invincible ignorance mitigates the guilt for the sin of heresy. It does not save. But it is important because being guilty of heresy automatically excludes one from the pale of the Church. So, one who is invincibly ignorant [i]can[/i] be saved (not will, can) whereas a heretic cannot. This is what Blessed Pope Pius IX said in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore no. 7: [quote]There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.[/quote] As to the means which God would use to save such a person, this would of course be baptism by desire. I do accept the idea that God could accept only an implicit desire, but in my view the range of people to whom this could be applied is much narrower than in the view of most phatmassers. I believe it would apply only to people who 1) never heard about Christ or His Church 2) were led by God to reject all that is false in their former religion, especially idolatry, pantheism, etc. and 3) recognized the One true and righteous God and obeyed the natural law which is written on their hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 [quote name='Hananiah' date='Aug 31 2004, 12:18 AM'] Yes, invincible ignorance mitigates the guilt for the sin of heresy. It does not save. But it is important because being guilty of heresy automatically excludes one from the pale of the Church. So, one who is invincibly ignorant [i]can[/i] be saved (not will, can) whereas a heretic cannot. This is what Blessed Pope Pius IX said in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore no. 7: As to the means which God would use to save such a person, this would of course be baptism by desire. I do accept the idea that God could accept only an implicit desire, but in my view the range of people to whom this could be applied is much narrower than in the view of most phatmassers. I believe it would apply only to people who 1) never heard about Christ or His Church 2) were led by God to reject all that is false in their former religion, especially idolatry, pantheism, etc. and 3) recognized the One true and righteous God and obeyed the natural law which is written on their hearts. [/quote] I think you must also add a fourth category: people who have heard of Christ and the Church, but have heard such a twisted version of the truth, that they rightly reject it, not realizing they are being lied to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hananiah Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 [quote]I believe it would apply only to people who 1) never heard about Christ or His Church 2) were led by God to reject all that is false in their former religion, especially idolatry, pantheism, etc. and 3) recognized the One true and righteous God and obeyed the natural law which is written on their hearts.[/quote] I still don't see how you're position is any different from other phatmassers. And just a comment, I think point 3 would in the end lead to point 2. However, could point 2 be implicit or would you say it needs to be explicit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now