Can Non-catholic Worship Please God?

[jasJis]

[quote name='mulls' date='Sep 20 2004, 09:35 PM'] and if no, than why does God answer non-catholic prayers? [/quote]
He doesn't answer non-catholic prayers. Any prayer that God finds acceptable is found in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church possesses the fullness of Grace which means that it possess all aspects of Worthy prayer. If prayers are offered outside the Visible Church on earth and are effective, then on the spiritual level, they were graced and so are part of the One Church. Remember mulls, the Catholic Church possesses the Fullness of Grace, not the only Grace. God is not divided or parcelles out. All Baptized Christians are part of the One Church on a spiritual level, even if not joined on a temporal level. The danger for non-Catholics is starting off partially seperated from Graces and lacking the opportunity for Fullness of Grace, eventually becomes more seperated from God until it's Spiritually Mortal. The danger for Catholics is becoming complacent and unappreciative of the abundant Grace and spiritually rejecting them. (This would be the brother of the Prodigal Son! LOL!)

[DominaNostra]

Thanks for the commentary, but since the theological question has been brought into question, we should answer it. I was under the impression that this is one of the purposes of the debating part of the website (while, of course, converting non-Catholics is the ultimate end). JasJis, the Church's teachings on faith cannot change. There is no need to bring up any catechism before or after Trent since I have provided the specific teachings from the Roman Catechism. From what I have read, this is the most relevant, most direct reference to this topic, and it is quite clear. The point has to be argued from the decree of this catechism because the Church's doctrine does not change. It is not as if the Church has a different teaching now than She did then. God bless.

[jasJis]

Then it's obvious you are misunderstanding what the Church is saying. Either you listent to all what it says, or ignore what it says. You can't just pick and choose. The Catholic Church is the Fullness of Grace, don't limit yourself... God bless.

[DominaNostra]

Not every catechism written in the history of the Church will answer every question posed concerning Catholic theology. During the time of the Council of Trent it was important to make known whether or not non-Catholics could please God because the Protestant Heresy was rampant. Once that was stated, the Church does not need to re-state it in every catechism following. Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Rome does not need to repeat the declarations of the Council of Nicea at every Council following it. In the same way, every catechism following the Roman Catechism does not have to address the exact same issues, otherwise there would be no point in publishing it. God bless.

[jasJis]

Good point. Use the Catechism with the most developed doctrine and understanding and applicable for the current time and context...

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='DominaNostra' date='Sep 21 2004, 12:02 AM'] Thanks for the commentary, but since the theological question has been brought into question, we should answer it. I was under the impression that this is one of the purposes of the debating part of the website (while, of course, converting non-Catholics is the ultimate end). JasJis, the Church's teachings on faith cannot change. There is no need to bring up any catechism before or after Trent since I have provided the specific teachings from the Roman Catechism. From what I have read, this is the most relevant, most direct reference to this topic, and it is quite clear. The point has to be argued from the decree of this catechism because the Church's doctrine does not change. It is not as if the Church has a different teaching now than She did then. God bless. [/quote]
Dogma does not change, but our understanding of it does. So as Catholics we avail ourselves of the current catechism since it reflects the Churches current understanding of the teachings of Christ.

The Living Magisterium is in charge of the Church. THe Catechism is a sure norm for the faith, for anyone who considers themselves Catholic.

[DominaNostra]

I am sorry. I just typed a long response as to why I did not use the new catechism or other catechisms besides the Roman Catechism. I cannot re-type all of it, but the main point was that the new catechism must be read in light of Tradition, and the new catechism doesn't contradict the Roman Catechism. The reason I used the Roman Catechism is that the new catechism did not state explicitly the things in the Roman Catechism, so I had to look elsewhere to find the information. In any event, the reason the new catechism is not as extensive in this area is that it deals with other issues of the world which were not present back during the time of Trent. Each catechism has specific issues it deals with more deeply than others. The new catechism talks about several social issues which were not dealt with in other catechisms. The Roman Catechism deals with the Church and Her relation to non-Catholics, especially Protestants, more than other catechisms because it was during the time of the Protestant Heresy. The other main thing was that the Church doesn't change teachings. If the Church said "Non-Catholic worship cannot be at all acceptable to God," She could not say later "Non-Catholic worship is sometimes acceptable or could be pleasing to God." So, on this issue, its not really a problem since the first statement in the Roman Catechism is an absolute. If it were not an absolute, e.g., if it said "Non-Catholic worship cannot be attended by Catholics and must be scorned by those of good Faith", then a later catechism could clarify "Non-Catholic worship cannot be attended, etc, and non-Catholic worship cannot be at all acceptable to God." This is a clarification, making an absolute from the original which did not consider the subject. The opposite cannot be true. If the Church teaches an absolute, e.g., the souls that die with mortal sin go immediately to Hell, She cannot change it to be "some souls that die in mortal sin could go to Heaven." That is basically the whole point of my post and the reasoning for using the Roman Catechism. I am kind of concerned that people would question its legitimacy, but, in any event, I still would like an answer to my argument, which has yet to be seen, especially I would like Jeff to answer. Also, just to add, there is no need to take time or context into account for an absolute (as offered above). Thanks. If anyone wishes to make an argument, please consider my last argument concerning those who are not members of the Church and the teaching of the Church that those outside the Church cannot please God. Thanks. God bless.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Domina Nostra, God Bless, and sorry for not getting back to you sooner. The past few weeks have been really busy at school, and to top it off, the crusade cuts into my phatmass time, because I'm posting over there as well.

[quote]"Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church
Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.

But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they miay be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power."[/quote]

One is absolutely obliged to read Magisterial Documents as they are interpreted by the living Magisterium, and not by one's own ideas and desires. Keeping this in mind, the above description of people "outside" the church is speaking on what has, since the issuing of the Roman Catechism (precisely because of ultra-traditionalist, rigorist views), needed further clarification. This clarification is that the above people are outside the [i]visible[/i] Church.

Now, as seen in the current catechism, which, I believe, has already been quoted somewhere above, even one who is not a [i]visible[/i] member may indeed be mysteriously united to the Church, and, through the Church, attain salvation.

Thus, all those people listed above are not [i]visible[/i] members of the Church, and so, they cannot be certain of their salvation by any stretch. Particularly in the nature of properly understood heretics and schismatics (as well as the excommunicated) it is exceedingly doubtful that they will be saved, do to the nature of why they are not a visible member of the Church (ie they knew the truth, but then left it).

I'm sorry, I must go, but I would be glad to continue later on!

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[jasJis]

It was already answered. You make suppositions and conclusions based on the old Catechism without reference to the current. The current Catechism reflects the Church's knowledge that God's grace is not divided and the fact that the Fullness of Grace is in the Catholic Church, not the ONLY grace. If a Christian can recieve the Grace of Baptism outside the Catholic Church, then the Grace of Worship can also be found. There are no NEW graces found outside the Catholic Church, including those of Worship. If it is graces from the Holy Spirit, then it is essentially Catholic, the Church that Christ is the Head of sends forth His Spirit from.

[DominaNostra]

I understand your argument, but for that to be true it would mean that there has been a change in doctrine, not just a new understanding. If those outside the Church are infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons and those outside the Church cannot please God, then the new "understanding" is: no one is outside the Church except those who explicitly reject Her, and the worship of everyone who does not explicitly reject the Church is pleasing to God, then that is certainly a change, not a development. The problem is that this new theology supposes that there is some birthright to the Church and to Heaven. We have no birthright to Heaven. When we are born, we are separated from God and deserve the fires of Hell. The only way this can be amended is by Baptism "by water and the Holy Ghost." With Baptism, we are made members God's family and members of the Church. We are no longer under the snares of the Devil. This is true, regardless of whether or not a person is able to be baptized. Also, those who are baptized and die before the age of use, enter immediately into Heaven (regardless of whether or not they are in a family of Catholics). Once the baptized person commits a sin, he has reached the age of use, and is culpable for his sins. Those outside the Church through no fault of their own are not damned for their heresy (if they never knew the Church) but for the sins that could not be forgiven without the Faith (Saint Thomas Aquinas). God bless.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Domina Nostra, God Bless! and again, sorry for the belated response.

The argument in your most recent post has two main points, each of which is in error.

First, you note that the "inclusive" view of who is a member of the Church is a change, not a development, in doctrine from a previously "exclusive" view of who is a member of the Church.

In reality, however, this doctrine has never changed, across all the Ages and throughout the 2000 year history of the Church, both an "inclusive" and "exclusive" view has been held simultaneously. I maintain that the teachings of the Living Magisterium are simply a clarification of the same, universal doctrine that has always been taught, because it fits perfectly within both the exclusive and the inclusive view, and, moreover, makes the inclusive and exclusive fit together.

If you are not familiar with any of the writings of the Early Church Fathers, Scripture, or previous Magisteriums that deal with the "inclusive" view, I would refer you to the document written by TheDude here on phatmass that deals with the doctrine of EENS.



Your second error is the claim that "this new theology supposes that there is some birthright to the Church and to Heaven."

First off, there is no "new theology" as I have addressed previously. Second, and more importantly, [i]the teachings of the Living Magisterium[/i] do not presuppose anything of the sort.

Now I agree entirely with your understanding of invincible ignorance: it is not salvific, but rather, it merely negates culpability. However, your post seems to indicate that you do not believe in the possibility of a "baptism of desire" or a "baptism of blood." If this is true, then I kindly remind you that as a member of the catholic laity, you and I both are obligated to give a religious submission of mind and will to all the teachings of the Magisterium, whether [i]de fide[/i] or not.

Now, working under the assumption that my previous statement is unnecessary and I wrongly interpreted your position, we must be willing to admit that one who lives in a state of invincible ignorace, but who follows the Moral and Natural Law with all their heart may undergo baptism of desire, and if this extraordinary circumstance should occur, [i]and[/i] that individual were to die with only venial sin on his/her soul, then that person would indeed attain salvation. Not because they "merit" it, but because the Grace and Mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ is that powerful, that it is capable of bringing into the Mystical Body that is the Church even those who do not explicitly ask it, but rather, implicitly desire it.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff