Catholic Faction?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The Catechism of Trent isn't infallible, but it still supports Baptism of Desire:
[quote][u]Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once[/u]

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, [b]their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness[/b].

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jewish converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.

Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.

(The Sacrament of Baptism)[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

"As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ," and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them 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 only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic God of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home." [Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, no. 103]

[dairygirl4u2c]

thedude has not shown any new evidence. Trent is talking about (at least arguably)people who desire to actually be baptized. Plus if you look at the mentality of the day,
[quote]the delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants[/quote]
you might realize the stingent mindset of the council. I realize this isn't infallible, the infant thing, but it goes to show the mindset. Just more circumstantial evidence against the Catholic Church in this matter.

Also, I don't see how cmothers post is relavent. (plus it really isn't very clear if it's possible for non's to be saved beyond the flowery context anyway)
[quote]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 only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church.[/quote]
(well, this might lead toward that, but it's a stretch taken just at this face value)

PXII has only been the pope in recent years. I've said how these popes aren't relevant and I've shown the dude how you could legitimately read/"interpret" trent, so I don't understand why I'm being shown the same thing. No one is summarizing my point. You guys do understand my point correct? (mega pretty much got and addressed some of it if you're not sure) The fact that you're not addressing it makes me think maybe you don't understand.

Edited September 18, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Oik]

The Church has never taught "no one can be saved outside of the Church" we way you are addressing it. The Church has always taught that God judges the hearts of men. Also, if you cannot accept the teachings of Christ, God, Holy Spirit, Holy Trinity, there is no reason for you to want to be in Heaven.

Mass is the foretaste of the divine realites. Sacraments are the sacred realites. Everything the Church teaches (that is the Church herself, not the people of the church, not the clergy or laity or such, but the actual Church) comes from Heaven. If you reject Heaven, where esle can you go?

[DominaNostra]

Oik, have you read the actual decrees which are infallible from the Church on that. "One indeed is the universal Church of faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." c.f., Lateran Council IV. "It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." c.f., [i]Unam Sanctam[/i]. "No one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless he remain in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." c.f., Council of Florence. These seem to be pretty clear. The only argument would be that the doctrine has developed, not that the Church didn't teach "all those outside the Church are damned." In this case you would have to show a development of doctrine which does not contradict previous teaching. In this case, that wouldn't be possible since it would be contradicting a previous absolute. That seems to be Dairygirl's point, and that of orthodox Catholics.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I don't see how you could argue against the "orthodox" catholics such as domina has mentioned. You might be able to legitamitly apply the development. In which case the "orthodox" should adhere since they follow the pope.

And so what we need it a primer on development that we can apply it to this situation. And we need all the possible facts of the situation so that we have the best possible picture for the situation being applied to.

It's looking like a cop out so far. (plus if it wasn't we'd be faced with other things that should be able to develop that pretty much everyone here has said cannot)

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='DominaNostra' date='Sep 18 2004, 09:04 PM'] Oik, have you read the actual decrees which are infallible from the Church on that. "One indeed is the universal Church of faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." c.f., Lateran Council IV. "It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." c.f., [i]Unam Sanctam[/i]. "No one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless he remain in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." c.f., Council of Florence. These seem to be pretty clear. The only argument would be that the doctrine has developed, not that the Church didn't teach "all those outside the Church are damned." In this case you would have to show a development of doctrine which does not contradict previous teaching. In this case, that wouldn't be possible since it would be contradicting a previous absolute. That seems to be Dairygirl's point, and that of orthodox Catholics. [/quote]
You have to understand the context of the era they were delivered in. These decress are directed at the Reformers and other schismatics/heretics.

I really don't get what we're trying to prove here in this thread if the magisterium isn't sufficient enough to prove the magisterium.

Edited September 19, 2004 by thedude

[Oik]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp"]Salvation outside the Church[/url]

[Oik]

[quote]"It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."[/quote]

What about the jews who died before the pope existed?

[Oik]

Its not even about context, its about understanding that the Church hasn't taught anything different than it has always taught. Asserting a "development" of doctrine is a dangerous assertation if we do not all understand the term "development." IN this instance, the development of doctrine means the Church (that is the body of believers) comes to understand the Church (that is the being and Truths that are universal and do not change).

Futhermore, the teachings of the early Church fathers along with tradition and bibical text provides the reinforcement of the Church and Her teachings, which come from God.

[Oik]

CCC 846-848:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"


846
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:


Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336


847
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:


Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.337


848
"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

[Oik]

And

Vatican II explained, "The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her" (Dei Verbum 8).

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp"]Can Dogma develop?[/url]

[DominaNostra]

The only problem is that 1) a development, properly speaking, cannot denote a change, and 2) a development cannot become looser (this is almost the same as denoting a change), i.e., if the Church Fathers said "Without the Church there is no salvation" (that there is salvation through the Church but did not specify "in" the Church), then the Church could clarify, being more specific to say "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (no mortal can be saved without being subject to the Pope). The opposite is not true. If the Fathers taught "Outside the Church there is no salvation", that cannot morph into "Without the Church there is no salvation," but the Fathers taught "Outside the Church there is no salvation," ergo the Church cannot teach "Without the Church there is no salvation" (same labels apply to the meanings of "without" and "outside"). God bless.

[Oik]

Domina, I understand, please clarify the statement "no mortal can be saved without being subject to the Pope," specifically "subject to the Pope."

Also, please answer how it is that people "in good faith" who died before the "Pope" were able to go to heaven.

What I am trying to show is that while all will need to "being subject to the Pope,"
often times, it is misundersood what this means.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think he just misinterpreted you Oik. Could be partly because you didn't address my issues. I already know how you can reconcile all that on textual levels. Just saying it's what is taught now, doesn't make it so. So do some follow up on that french stuff or something. Try to show intent. (by the way, if you're trying to show intent by showing what was taught before the controversials and after, then you are arguing in a circle because you're assuming the Catholic Church to be true, which is one of the assumptions we are disputing)

I have two circumstantial evidences against the Catholic Church. One, the mentality of the days of trent where they believed the fate of newborns without baptism was not good. The other, the fact that so many traditionalists follow "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" strictly. I've had seminarians tell me it was thought of in the strict since by even the popes who wrote it. (that may be the third evidence, but it's just what someone says, not necessarily fact) So if you want to argue this is development, then let's talk about that. And by the way, your sites on development and salvation outside the Catholic Church were very poorly done. (don't just copy and paste links unless you know what it means to the point that you can argue it.. I assume you didn't really read it because it pretty much says what everyone has been saying as far as the salvation one. and this topic doesn't appear to me to apply to the development one.. if you think it does, then let's discuss it) And this doesn't go to just oik, in fact, I want people who are knowledgeable to comment.

Thanx.

Edited September 20, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c