Catholic Faction?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

There is no difference now as then on the issue of unbaptized infants. The Church has never taken a stand for infant salvation or damnation. The New Catechism merely says their fate is left up to God and that they should be prayed for. If you've heard otherwise, chances are it was a dissident source of Catholic theology.

[Oik]

Dairy, don't be harsh. Better to not reply.

Edited September 20, 2004 by Oik

[Oik]

[quote]Try to show intent.[/quote]

Ummm, right. This will never happen because you cannot prove intent, even if you could show it. Intent is a matter of faith, so to speak. I "believe" what you say or I don't "believe" it, either way, I judge you actions by a standard. Intent is as difficult to talk about as Faith.

It is more appropriate to discuss whether the standard by which a thing is judged is True or not. If it is, it will hold up, if its not, it may hold up sometimes, but not always.

[Oik]

Also, here is your origianl post:
[quote]How do you all suppose the traditionalists came to reject the teachings of vatican II on allowing the possibility for salvation outside the Catholic Church for non Catholic Church's officially?

It seems they'd come to that because at one point, it was expressly said that no nons can be saved. And the ordinary magisterium taught this. If this is the case, papal infallibility is a sham, correct?.


Maybe there was an equal split in the Church on the issue, I dunno. But you can tell me how it came to be[/quote]
Also, in you last post you wrote
[quote]you're assuming the Catholic Church to be true, which is one of the assumptions we are disputing[/quote]
There is nothing in the original post that states we are debating whether the Catholic Church is true.
[quote]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)[/quote]
As Brother adam has already stated earlier in this thread, your points are moot. You make one really big mistake about the Church, you fail to see that the Church isn't just the people who make mistakes, but it is also the Bride of Christ whose teachings are from God, meaning there are not mistakes. Please understand that the Church is not just the people, but the actual physical being that is not the people.

[Oik]

Actually, the article I posted on can domga develp is very clear, you should cafefully reread it.

[quote]As we read Scripture, we see in it doctrines we already hold, each of us having been instructed in the faith before ever picking up the sacred text. This is a necessary process, as Scripture indicates. Peter explained, "There are some things in them (Paul’s letters) hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16)[/quote]

Pretty clear that what the church teaches does not change, but that the [b]people[/b] over time come into a deeper understanding of the Church. Also:

[quote]However, when we read Scripture in the light of the apostles’ authentic teachings, we sometimes forget that some central doctrines (such as the Trinity and the hypostatic union) were not always understood or as clearly expounded in the Church’s early days the way they are now. Understanding grew and deepened over time.[/quote]

[quote]More significant than Fundamentalists’ rejection of the development of human traditions—such as when Christ’s birth is celebrated—is their rejection of apostolic tradition. Human traditions may be good or bad, but they do not have the weight that apostolic tradition does. The latter, since it conveys God’s revelation to us, is essential to the proper development of doctrine.

Catholics know that public revelation ended with the last apostle’s death. But the part of revelation that was not written down—the part outside the Bible, the apostles’ inspired oral teaching (1 Thess. 2:13) and their binding interpretations of Old Testament Scripture that forms the basis of sacred Tradition—that part of revelation Catholics also accept. Catholics follow Paul’s command: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15, cf. 1 Cor. 11:2).[/quote]

[quote]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.[/quote]

There have been many [b]people[/b] disagree with the Church, that really is irrelevant. The teachings of the Church haven't changed, so it is more important to discuss this than to try and go through history pointing out that others have disagrred with the Church as a way to prove that the Church is wrong.

In this thread, it have been made very clear that the Church has not changed Her teeaching, but that people through out history have changed thier minds. Equating the undertanding of the Church with the mentality of the people is not a valid way to point out that the Church is wrong.

If you want to discredit the Church, you are going to have to discredit Her own works and teachings, not the works and teachings of people.

Edited September 20, 2004 by Oik

[Oik]

BTW, I find your postings to be intellectually chanllenging and very exciting, because I love to talk about the Church, so thanks for those posts.

Edited September 20, 2004 by Oik

[dairygirl4u2c]

oik, thanx for the compliment. And I wasn't trying to be disagreeable in the negative sense of the word. I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way. But as for you guys' posting..

[quote]There is no difference now as then on the issue of unbaptized infants.[/quote]

It's ironic because I got the infant quote from thedude's post on this page. (4)

[quote]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[/quote]

You are right that the stances are technically the same, ie we don't know what happens with the baby. But this article stresses that they are in bad shape. Do you agree? And incidentally I would say today they stress more of not knowing as opposed to the dangers. Anyway, since they had that tone, it still goes to show the intent.

[quote]Ummm, right. This will never happen because you cannot prove intent, even if you could show it. Intent is a matter of faith, so to speak. I "believe" what you say or I don't "believe" it, either way, I judge you actions by a standard. Intent is as difficult to talk about as Faith. [/quote]

I agree intent can be hard to find. I found lots of circumstancial evidences. mega argued the french stuff. There's lots of ways to show it, at least circumstantially. (remembering circumstantial does hold up in a court of law though admittted that's not divine)

[quote]There is nothing in the original post that states we are debating whether the Catholic Church is true.
[/quote]

It is not there explicitly. But it is implied. You might be able to argue that with a catholic, (which I'm sure they could argue with you about who the pope really is or whatever and not be proven necessarily wrong, but anyway) but any argument with a non catholic is going to have that implied.

[quote]you fail to see that the Church isn't just the people who make mistakes[/quote]

Actually I'm not even arguing that. I recognized that because the seminarians said something doesn't mean it's true. That's why I didn't count it as one of my circumstantials. Unless you are talking about the people who I may use who interpretted it wrongly? In that case you have a good point. But I still insist it shows intent. I would want you to show more of the lenient from around those days, that's always one thing that I've been wanting. (in case I didn't make that clear enough)

But this does bring up the good topic of development. That's what the priests argued. And that's the only way I could see it being argued. I'm not against the concept of development. I just want to argue if it is legitimate when applied to this case.

Then there is also the french kind of thing, but I haven't seen much in that area for many of the other popes.


Are we going to have to agree to disagree or does anyone have anything new to bring to light? Namely, applying the theory of development to this doctrine. Or arguing more of the french type of argument to show intent.

Edited September 21, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[DominaNostra]

Dairygirl, I am just curious; what is the source you have that the Church currently teaches that non-Catholics can be saved? If this has not been taught [i]De Fide[/i], then there is no basis for this as a proof against the Church. Correct me if I am wrong; your argument is as follows: The Church teaches that She is infallible. The Church taught [i]De Fide [/i]that non-Catholics cannot be saved. The Church now teaches that non-Catholics can in fact be saved. The Church, therefore, has erred and contradicted Her own principle of infallibility... I would agree with you if the third proposition could be proven. Where has the Church taught that non-Catholics can be saved (in an infallible statement)? I agree with you on this point other than the fact that the Church has not taught [i]De Fide [/i]that non-Catholics have any chance of being saved whatsoever. On the next issue, that of souls who die without Baptism, the Church teaches that "The souls of those who die with mortal sin or original sin only descend immediately into Hell (to be punished with different punishments)." c.f., Council of Lyons II & Council of Florence, N.B., the part in parenthesis was clarified at Florence. These are both Ecumenical Councils and are thus infallible. There is no infallible source whatsoever declaring that unbaptized infants can be saved. This is speculative theology of this era (which can certainly be denied by faithful Catholics) and is by no means taught by the Church, much less [i]De Fide[/i]. Further, if your third objection is that the Popes who declared [i]Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus [/i]believed it to be the strict understanding, this would not be contradicted by any infallible statement by the Church, so that point would also be moot. In short, believing that all of the "old teachings" are true is not only possible for a Catholic, but some would say it is even necessary.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Isn't VII infallible? I've seen Catholics debate this issue before. Or did VII just say, if nons can be saved, it is simply through the church? I thought I was pretty sure that this was official. Why do Catholics bash heartford for saying you have to believe that noncatholics can not be saved in the strict sense? Is this disagreement legitimate within a catholic believer context?

I guess the question is, is VII or that "saved by the church" stuff de fide or not? Actually if I grant that it is not, it would surely have to be part of the ordinary magisterium right?


[quote]The Church teaches that She is infallible. The Church taught De Fide that non-Catholics cannot be saved. The Church now teaches that non-Catholics can in fact be saved. The Church, therefore, has erred and contradicted Her own principle of infallibility[/quote]

Yes that is right. Except the de fide can replaced with "the ordinary magisterium" if need be. The ordinary is infallible the way I understand it.


You have a good point. But it's aggravating because you are arguing differently than others. Most here say they can be saved and that is the faith. I suppose that is why you were on oik. We need a firm definition of what it teaches. And we need to establish if VII is de fide. And we need to analyze the ordinary magisterium.

Edited September 21, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest lundercovera]

LOOK: it's simple, the Catholic Church has never contradicted the idea of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, She has never denied the fact that inculpable ignorance makes one INCULPABLE for the sin. the Second Vatican Council elaborated on all these issues, as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is AUTHORITATIVE in matters of what the Catholic Church does and does not hold as its faith (at least according to the POPE. and the BISHOPS. and, umm... the CHURCH). it's a developement on previously held notions of baptism of blood and desire, and of inculpable ignorance. (for it is a mortal sin to not be a member of that Catholic Church which Christ established for all men, but if one through no fault of their own is not a member of that Church, but seeks out God and tries to do God's will through the dictates of his God-given conscience, he may be unconsciencely connected to the Church in intent and longing for God though he knows not the gospel (not his fault, OUR fault for not bringing it to him) and thus be saved by his connection to the Church. saved by the Church. there is no salvation outside of the Church)

to deny this is what the Divine Catholic Church teaches is to doctor it up to fit your own preconcieved ideas. to say "oh this or that is not proclaimed de fide, i can reject it and hold to a stricter sense (which was condemned by the Holy Office in a little campaign against "Feenyism") than the Church holds it to and harm the Church's efforts to bring more into her fold by proclaiming everyone not physically attached to her damned" is to WORK AGAINST THE CHURCH and thus not work on God's side but the devil's.

God's One Holy Apostolic Church holds that if one is inculpably ignorant of the Gospel of Christ through no fault of his own (yeah i'm being redundant that means the same as inculpable, sue me) they will not be damned for the sin of heresy or schism or lack of visible Catholic faith. they will be judged and they might be saved depending on if their intention and desires and actions were ordered towards the following of their conscience (which is given by God). they are judged on whether or not they sought to do God's will and thus were united to the Church in desire and intention.

Outside the Church there is no salvation.

The desire and intention to follow God's Will if one has not had the oppurtunity to hear the Gospel and thus is inculpable for the sin of remaining outside the New Ark of Noah they may not be damned.

May God have mercy on us all, especially those who fail to hold the Divine Catholic Faith which is absolutely necessary for salvation, and for those who beaver dam people to hell denying the powerful reign of the Almighty God based on their preconceived notions. Amen.

Pax Dominus Iesus

[DominaNostra]

Dairy, thanks for the reply. As far as I have read, Vatican II itself states that only those teachings which explicitly are stated as having infallible authority actually have it, i.e., every statement is not infallible (as are most Ecumenical Councils), only those which are explicitly defining doctrine. The statements in Vatican II make no such charge. They serve simply as pastoral guides of how to treat non-Catholics. While this could certainly be misunderstood, it does not constitute as a [i]De Fide [/i]teaching because it does not constitute as an [i]Ex Cathedra [/i]statement (unless specifically noted). The Ordinary Magisterium has not been defined. We know that teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are infallible, but what constitutes as the Ordinary Magisterium has not been defined. With this being said, I think that it is safe (for our purposes) to assume that the only teachings that are infallible by way of the Ordinary Magisterium are matters of morals. The Church is infallible in faith and morals, but there are Church Councils to deal with specific matters of faith and to define Catholic teaching, but this is not the Church's tradition regarding morals. It would be sensible to assert that the teachings of the Magisterium on morality are part of the Ordinary Magisterium but that only those teachings on faith which are explicitly taught [i]Ex Cathedra [/i]are infallible, [i]De Fide [/i]teachings because this has been the practice of the Church from the beginning. In any event, since the Ordinary Magisterium has not been defined, the debate on this grounds cannot really be sustained, so the only argument would be to find that Vatican II is infallible in an explicitly noted statement which contradicts previous teaching. I have not been able to do this; I believe that it is impossible because of the infallibility of the Church, but if you would like to, I invite you to try. Truth cannot contradict truth. May you find the Truth of God in your endeavors concerning the Church and be converted to the one, true Church outside of which no one at all is saved. I would also like to provide an excerpt I read from Pope Gregory XVI, [i]Summo Iugiter Studio[/i]:

“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life… You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that this is indeed the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”

That is absolutely filled with the strict 'interpretation.' I think that gives a good understanding of context, if that is what you were seeking. The commentary that was provided (by the source) is below, take it for what you will:

Pope Gregory XVI does not say, “However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it,” ... No, he unequivocally affirms that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Throughout the whole encyclical, Gregory XVI does not fail to repeatedly affirm the true and literal meaning of the phrase Outside the Church There is No Salvation, without qualification or exception, as it had been defined... Also, notice that Pope Gregory XVI makes reference to the dogmatic definition of the Fourth Lateran Council to substantiate his position and literal understanding of the formula Outside the Church There is No Salvation. This is because Pope Gregory XVI ... knew that the only understanding of a dogma that exists is that which Holy Mother Church has once declared... That explains why Pope Gregory cited exactly what Holy Mother Church has once declared and the authors of the Protocol did not.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 4, On Faith and Reason: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

[Oik]

There are many who do doubt whether VII is infallible. From what I have read, it meets the requirements and is an ecumenical council. Is VII infallible, Yes.

[Guest lundercovera]

I agree 100% with those statements. They are absolutely 100% true. It is absolutely necessary for salvation that all human creatures be made subject to the Roman Pontiff.

We are not called to obsess over what is "infallible" and what is "not infallible"... we are called to LISTEN to the Church, and allow it to TEACH us. The Catholic Church in the Second Vatican Council developed upon the TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC ideas of baptism of desire, baptism of blood, and inculpable ignorance.

Here's an example: one may say that it is necessary for salvation that one not murder anyone. this is a true statement. however, all good Catholics know that what is necessary for a damning sin is that a person have grave matter (which killing someone would be) full intent of the will (no one's holding a gun to your head or has a mind control device or somethin crazy like that) and full knowledge that what you're doing is wrong. if that third condition is not met, they may meet the requirements for INCULPABLE IGNORANCE-- God will not beaver dam them over the mere act but rather look deep into their heart and judge them on a deeper level than a superficial human judge would.

same applies to the sin of remaining outside of the One Holy Apostolic Church.

THE SAME APPLIES. It's traditional Catholic theology on the nature of sin and damnation.

Those quotes are true. The Divine Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation. One can be united to that Divine Faith through desire and intention if they hold an inculpable ignorance of the fact that they must join the Roman Catholic Church for salvation.

Do not put limits on God's mercy based on your preconceived ideas. Recognize the Church for who she really is, and has always been, the SPOTLESS BRIDE of CHRIST. She remains spotless for she has never taught heresy in all 2000 years of her existence since Her Divine Founder forged her upon Peter and gaver her the Holy Spirit to lead her into all truth.

Pax Dominus Iesus

[Oik]

Domina, Your cites are well recieved but the strict or liberal interpretation is not the debate. It's easy for us to disagree, however, its more important to me to foucs on the universal issue. Is there salvation outside the Church?

Please CCC 1260 and 1281

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."63 [b]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.[/b]

1281
Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).


Also, while mortal sin condemns souls to hell, there are "three conditions must be present: grave matter, full knowledge of the evil of the act, and full consent of the will (1855, 1857)."

[Oik]

Again, lundercovera, you posted while I was writing and then you finished before I posted, so it seems I am reposting what you said. Lol. Again I agree with you good sir.