Conditional Baptism of Heretics

[Aloysius]

I was in error saying it originated in the 20th century, just a bit of shotty-research to keep up with the convo on my part. sorry.

and what is with your distinction between "subsists"? what's different between that and "exists"...

parts of the truth only exist in the protestant religions insomuch as they have retained it from the Church, in such a way the Church is still the origin of any truth that is contained within a protestant religion. valid baptism is something that was taken from the Source, the Church, and her scriptures.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

by saying the church of christ subsists in the Catholic Church denys Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. it implies that the church of christ subsists in other christian relegions putting catholicism and heresy at an equal level. So now after vatican II formal and material heretics can atian salvation?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 22 2005, 11:04 AM']by saying the church of christ subsists in the Catholic Church denys  Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. it implies that the church of christ subsists in other christian relegions putting catholicism and heresy at an equal level. So now after vatican II formal and material heretics can atian salvation?
[right][snapback]694104[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yuo need to look up the technical church definition of "subsists"

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

where can i do that?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 22 2005, 10:04 AM']by saying the church of christ subsists in the Catholic Church denys  Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. it implies that the church of christ subsists in other christian relegions putting catholicism and heresy at an equal level. So now after vatican II formal and material heretics can atian salvation?
[right][snapback]694104[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No it does not. It acknowledges what is true and therefore Catholic in those religions. This is not giving credence to the heresy which is in them. There is truth in all men. It was put there by God (Romans 2:15) and we are to acknowledge that, even use it to our advantage in converting them. Paul does it at the aeropogus in Acts 17. St. Francis Xavier was a master at it, converting nearly one million to Catholicism. It is said that within a week where he went he had already begun mastering the language and learning about the people.


This is the method by which the Church was able to convert every continent to Christ.

Blessings

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 22 2005, 11:04 AM']by saying the church of christ subsists in the Catholic Church denys  Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. it implies that the church of christ subsists in other christian relegions putting catholicism and heresy at an equal level. So now after vatican II formal and material heretics can atian salvation?
[right][snapback]694104[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No it does not, as Thess pointed out. To deny that there is any truth outside of the Catholic Church denies 21 centuries of Catholic teaching. You are equating truth with salvation, this is not the case. The Catholic Church fully recognizes what truth remains in those outside of the Catholic Church. What truth exists outside of the Catholic Church ultimately finds it source in God's Revelation and is mediated to us infallibly through the Church. This is why we say that the [b]fullness of truth[b] subsists in the Catholic Church. If we say that it exists, rather than subsists in the Church we have no choice but to tell the Baptist that he is wrong when he claims that Jesus is Lord. This would be silly.

It is very clear that you don't even begin to understand the Second Vatican Council. You can find the documents free of charge on the Vatican's website. I strongly suggest you read the council that you so often try to attack.

[Aloysius]

Actually, EENS, I suggest you read all this:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm"]Nicaea I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm"]Constantinople I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm"]Ephesus[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm"]Chalcedon[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm"]Constantinope II[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm"]Constantinope III[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm"]Nicaea II[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum08.htm"]Constantinople IV[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum09.htm"]Lateran I[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum10.htm"]Lateran II[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum11.htm"]Lateran III[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum12.htm"]Lateran IV[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum13.htm"]Lyons I[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum15.htm"]Council of Vienne[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum16.htm"]Council of Constance[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm"]Council of Basle[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm"]Lateran V[/url]
[url="http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent.html"]Council of Trent[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm"]Vatican I[/url]
[url="http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/index.html"]Vatican II[/url]

and THEN get back to us about how "contradictory" they are.

[Brother Adam]

[url="http://www.flyfreeministries.org/first.htm"]Also Provided Here in text-only format[/url]

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

it might be a while on those

[Aloysius]

: yeah I know, I went through em all (I have a two-volume hardcover set with everything in em)

anyway, V2 is good, and if anything seems vague or you don't understand something in V2, you go to previous councils to figure out what it meant. because V2 must be understood in the light of previous teaching (not the other way around as some liberals would have you believe)

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 22 2005, 12:14 PM']it might be a while on those
[right][snapback]694256[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Then, it is my suggestion, and I am guessing the others would agree, that you refrain from attacking the Second Vatican Council or any of the Popes until you have read all those.

It would benefit everyone if you took this suggestion.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

don't be so hasty now.

[Era Might]

The presence of Truth outside the visible boundaries of the Church predates the Council by 2 millenia. This concept is traditionally known as the "Semina Verbi", "Seeds of the Word":

[quote]The Church has never treated the doctrines of the pagans with contempt and disdain; rather she has freed them from all error, then completed them and crowned them with Christian wisdom.

--Pope Pius XII[/quote]

Also, here's a good explanation of why the Council used the word "Subsist":

[quote]Subsistence is a specific kind of existence. The Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary defines it as "that perfection whereby a being is capable of existing in itself" (Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary pg. 507). Subsistence (Lat. subsistare) is an old Scholastic term used to explain the manner whereby God exists. Unlike all other entities, God does not depend on another source for His existence. Instead, He is fully subsistent. Likewise the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church in such wise as she does not depend on any other Church or ecclesial community for she possesses the fullness of grace and truth. The same cannot be said of other Churches or ecclesial communities which depend on the Catholic Church for what degrees of truth that they possess.

So the Church of Christ can be properly said to subsist in the Catholic Church as this denotes existence to the fullest possible extent. Of course since the Church had never fully specified her boundaries explicitly prior to VC II, there was no way of knowing what the exact boundaries of the Church were. This is why the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of the Church would insist on the necessity of belonging to the Church for one to be saved but they never at the same time declared anyone individually not in the visible Catholic Church to be damned. Think about that for a moment: not one Father said that it was not necessary to belong to the Church for one to be saved. At the same time no one who died outside the Church was ever declared to be damned by the Church in all of history (not even Judas). What this says about the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation is that while it is a necessity surely that nevertheless God in the end is the final judge of who is inside the Church (be they implicitly or explicitly so) because only He knows the inner person...

For an example of an "element of sanctification" that can be found outside the visible confines of the Church, consider the sacrament of baptism. When Pope St. Stephen in the mid third century decreed (against the protestations of St. Cyprian) that heretics were not to be re-baptized and the baptisms of heretics even by heretics were valid (as long as they baptized by water in a Trinitarian fashion), consider what he was saying about the Church as the custodian of the sacraments. The Church has always taught that only she was the custodian of the sacraments but heretics can validly baptize as long as they use the proper formula (Trinitarian formula). What this says is that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church always recognized implicitly that God's grace flowed through the Church and that God did not punish those outside the Church who (through no culpable fault of their own) were ignorant. In short, if they were good people who did as best as they knew how the will of God, then they would be justified in God's eyes (Acts 10:34). God only holds us accountable for what we know and only actual unrepented sins bring about our condemnation.

[url="http://lidless-eye.blogspot.com/2003_02_01_lidless-eye_archive.html"]http://lidless-eye.blogspot.com/2003_02_01...ye_archive.html[/url] [/quote]

Edited August 22, 2005 by Era Might