No Salvation Outside

[thessalonian]

By the way, if the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid, as my brothers letter implies, then these trads, indignant over us calling their revolt a schism, because of the obvious eens implications, are calling us, including the Pope, who they claim to be in union with, schismatics and damned to hell. The logical idocy of their tangled web is obvous.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1402961' date='Oct 15 2007, 09:12 AM']Forgive me if I have a hard edge toward trads but I just read a long letter from my brother calling me a neo-catholic or whatever the deragotory term is, a bunch of carp twisting words of Cardinal Hoyos at the vatican, justifying schism which they say isn't schism, because of course all schismatics go to hell according to their very own doctrine, and so they must rant when they are called schimsatic as my brother did over the phone one time when I said "you are in danger of schism" when he first headed down this path, and generally slamming and denying the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass. With not one mention in 5 pages of the name of Jesus Christ, and the scandal that division, forgive me if I am a bit harsh with trads. By the way he's sspx.

Blessings[/quote]


No hard feelings. I've gotten far worse comments from many people. And I know what you mean about the SSPX position. I have a hard time with a lot of their philosophy as well, though I do respect them a great deal. It must be hard to deal with this with a family member. Only one of my immediate family member's did not convert when I did, my brother. Though he's not really much of anything and has a lot of other problems to deal with currently. It's tough not being able to share faith with one's brother.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1402969' date='Oct 15 2007, 09:34 AM']By the way, if the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid, as my brothers letter implies, then these trads, indignant over us calling their revolt a schism, because of the obvious eens implications, are calling us, including the Pope, who they claim to be in union with, schismatics and damned to hell. The logical idocy of their tangled web is obvous.[/quote]

Well technically, any pope even if he's not schismatic is not protected from hell. Even a true pope can go to hell. Though it is a sticky road one goes down with the SSPX and obedience issues. I understand their position, and respect the reasons for it, but I don't agree with it.

[thessalonian]

Sounds like you have your own brand of "catholicism". Your own personal truth. How nice.

[goldenchild17]

okay. If you say so.

Edited October 16, 2007 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

If true, I can't imagine what could possibly be "nice" about it though.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you're a mystery goldenchild. at least to me. are your beliefs a mystery to you as well? there's nothing wrong with that necessarily, as long as you realize it, and are figure it all out.

[goldenchild17]

No I know what I believe (well there is one more major kink I'm working out) but I know what I believe overall. I'm just not allowed to debate it on phatmass, hence the generic no-answer replies . But anyone that wants to no more about the mystery that is goldenchild , can email me anytime.

Edited October 18, 2007 by goldenchild17

[mortify]

Golden,

Ultimately you are relying on the belief that your mind has grasped all the evidence pertaining to this topic and it has understood it correctly. If you are wrong you will have no defense for yourself when you stand before Christ.

I personally do not have the time, the acumen, nor the background in theology to adequately assess such issues, and if I were left up to my human abilities I would surly be doomed. But faith is not a product of man attempting to understand God, it is God's gift to man, so that he can come to believe in things otherwise inaccessible to the human intellect. My confidence therefore is in the Magesterium that is instituted by God, and by it I sleep soundly at night

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='mortify' post='1405867' date='Oct 19 2007, 09:59 PM']Golden,

Ultimately you are relying on the belief that your mind has grasped all the evidence pertaining to this topic and it has understood it correctly. If you are wrong you will have no defense for yourself when you stand before Christ. I personally do not have the time, the acumen, nor the background in theology to adequately assess such issues, and if I were left up to my human abilities I would surly be doomed. But faith is not a product of man attempting to understand God, it is God's gift to man, so that he can come to believe in things otherwise inaccessible to the human intellect. My confidence therefore is in the Magesterium that is instituted by God, and by it I sleep soundly at night[/quote]

Heavens no. I would be an idiot if I thought myself capable understanding everything there is to know, even about this topic. This is likely something no one will fully understand until we get to heaven. This is just a philosophy, not my religion. My faith is Catholicism. That is what I stand on. Sedevacantism (or sede-impeditism) or the Cassiciacum Thesis or any number of any theories floating about out there are just philosophical ideas that try to rationalize what is going on in recent years. What I stand on, and what I will stand on when I go before Christ at my judgment is my trust in the faith that has born hundreds of saints and although I most assuredly won't be one of them, I can know without ever fully understanding all its fine points, that there faith is the true one. That's all I need to know for salvation. This other philosophy is extremely important to me because I am an inquisitive person. I was deeply into apologetics before converting, and I am still that way. I want to know what it is that has caused all the so many things that have happened. I want to know so that I can at least share what I have learned with the people that I care about. Sedevacantism may be right or wrong, who knows? All I personally know right now, is that what is thought to be the Catholic heirarchy today, is not. How this is or why this is I don't know. I would like to know, which is why I do the research I do. But I will be judged on how I live the faith. Not by how much I know. The saints during the Avignon papacy may not have known all the answers. They just lived the faith. Same thing during the Reformation, and the Arian heresy. They weren't judged by what they couldn't know. Sometimes answers to crises come only long after the fact, and I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true about things today. But there is one thing we can know for sure. We can know the true teachings of the Church as they have been passed down through lawful Tradition and Holy Scriptures. One isn't required to understand them (although great men such as Aquinas and Bellarmine and Augustine etc. all have done a remarkable job at helping in this regard) one is only required to believe it. I believe the events of today are something that God has drawn up since the beginning, and like all of Church History, this is something I think people should try to understand. Will I continue to try and figure out why and how certain things have occurred? Definitely, but not because my salvation depends upon it.

Edited October 20, 2007 by goldenchild17

[dairygirl4u2c]

i found some more info on this topic, and i wasn't sure where to post it, given i have so many threads and posts on this subject.

just wanted it to be somewhere in my archives.

[url="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=98621&page=2"]http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=98621&page=2[/url]


[quote][quote]St. Thomas:

Whether it is necessary for the salvation of all, that they should believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ?

Objection 1. It would seem that it is not necessary for the salvation of all that they should believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ. For man is not bound to believe explicitly what the angels are ignorant about: since the unfolding of faith is the result of Divine revelation, which reaches man by means of the angels, as stated above (6; I, 111, 1). Now even the angels were in ignorance of the mystery of the Incarnation: hence, according to the commentary of Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii), it is they who ask (Psalm 23:8): "Who is this king of glory?" and (Isaiah 63:1): "Who is this that cometh from Edom?" Therefore men were not bound to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ's Incarnation.

Objection 2. Further, it is evident that John the Baptist was one of the teachers, and most nigh to Christ, Who said of him (Matthew 11:11) that "there hath not risen among them that are born of women, a greater than" he. Now John the Baptist does not appear to have known the mystery of Christ explicitly, since he asked Christ (Matthew 11:3): "Art Thou He that art to come, or look we for another?" Therefore even the teachers were not bound to explicit faith in Christ.

Objection 3. Further, many gentiles obtained salvation through the ministry of the angels, as Dionysius states (Coel. Hier. ix). Now it would seem that the gentiles had neither explicit nor implicit faith in Christ, since they received no revelation. Therefore it seems that it was not necessary for the salvation of all to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Corr. et Gratia vii; Ep. cxc): "Our faith is sound if we believe that no man, old or young is delivered from the contagion of death and the bonds of sin, except by the one Mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ."

I answer that, As stated above (5;1, 8), the object of faith includes, properly and directly, that thing through which man obtains beatitude. Now the mystery of Christ's Incarnation and Passion is the way by which men obtain beatitude; for it is written (Acts 4:12): "There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." Therefore belief of some kind in the mystery of Christ's Incarnation was necessary at all times and for all persons, but this belief differed according to differences of times and persons. The reason of this is that before the state of sin, man believed, explicitly in Christ's Incarnation, in so far as it was intended for the consummation of glory, but not as it was intended to deliver man from sin by the Passion and Resurrection, since man had no foreknowledge of his future sin. He does, however, seem to have had foreknowledge of the Incarnation of Christ, from the fact that he said (Genesis 2:24): "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife," of which the Apostle says (Ephesians 5:32) that "this is a great sacrament . . . in Christ and the Church," and it is incredible that the first man was ignorant about this sacrament.

"But after sin, man believed explicitly in Christ, not only as to the Incarnation, but also as to the Passion and Resurrection, whereby the human race is delivered from sin and death: for they would not, else, have foreshadowed Christ's Passion by certain sacrifices both before and after the Law, the meaning of which sacrifices was known by the learned explicitly, while the simple folk, under the veil of those sacrifices, believed them to be ordained by God in reference to Christ's coming, and thus their knowledge was covered with a veil, so to speak. And, as stated above (1, 7), the nearer they were to Christ, the more distinct was their knowledge of Christ's mysteries.

"After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above (1, 8). As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office.[/quote]

Reply to Objection 1. The mystery of the Kingdom of God was not entirely hidden from the angels, as Augustine observes (Gen. ad lit. v, 19), yet certain aspects thereof were better known to them when Christ revealed them to them.

Reply to Objection 2. It was not through ignorance that John the Baptist inquired of Christ's advent in the flesh, since he had clearly professed his belief therein, saying: "I saw, and I gave testimony, that this is the Son of God" (John 1:34). Hence he did not say: "Art Thou He that hast come?" but "Art Thou He that art to come?" thus saying about the future, not about the past. Likewise it is not to be believed that he was ignorant of Christ's future Passion, for he had already said (John 1:39): "Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sins [Vulg.: 'sin'] of the world," thus foretelling His future immolation; and since other prophets had foretold it, as may be seen especially in Isaias 53. We may therefore say with Gregory (Hom. xxvi in Evang.) that he asked this question, being in ignorance as to whether Christ would descend into hell in His own Person. But he did not ignore the fact that the power of Christ's Passion would be extended to those who were detained in Limbo, according to Zach. 9:11: "Thou also, by the blood of Thy testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein there is no water"; nor was he bound to believe explicitly, before its fulfilment, that Christ was to descend thither Himself.

It may also be replied that, as Ambrose observes in his commentary on Lk. 7:19, he made this inquiry, not from doubt or ignorance but from devotion: or again, with Chrysostom (Hom. xxxvi in Matth.), that he inquired, not as though ignorant himself, but because he wished his disciples to be satisfied on that point, through Christ: hence the latter framed His answer so as to instruct the disciples, by pointing to the signs of His works.

Reply to Objection 3. Many of the gentiles received revelations of Christ, as is clear from their predictions. Thus we read (Job 19:25): "I know that my Redeemer liveth." The Sibyl too foretold certain things about Christ, as Augustine states (Contra Faust. xiii, 15). Moreover, we read in the history of the Romans, that at the time of Constantine Augustus and his mother Irene a tomb was discovered, wherein lay a man on whose breast was a golden plate with the inscription: "Christ shall be born of a virgin, and in Him, I believe. O sun, during the lifetime of Irene and Constantine, thou shalt see me again" [Cf. Baron, Annal., A.D. 780. If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: "Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth." END

So, as we can see, St. Thomas said that "after grace has been revealed all are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ".

Regarding the baptized infant: The infant is also require to make an act of explicit faith when they are capable of doing so. In the mean time, the faith of their parents suffices for the reception of baptism, in which supernatural faith is infused into the soul of the child, awaiting the day when he is capable of making an act of faith.


[quote]The unbaptized adult, however, who is "invincibly ignorant" of the truths of the faith neither has the grace of supernatural faith given at baptism (since he hasn't received baptism), nor does he have explicit faith since he is ignorant of that which he must believe.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
As elsewhere he [St. Thomas] speaks of how invincible ignorance can remove culpability for sin.

That is true. St. Thomas says that invincible ignorance can remove the culpability of sin. No one is guilty for not believing something they are unaware of. Therefore, St. Thomas says that when such unbelievers go to hell, it is not due to their ignorance, which is invincible, but due to some other sin they have committed, which cannot be taken away without faith.

According to St. Thomas, invincible ignorance is not a means of salvation, but rather a punishment for sin:

St. Thomas:” [u]If we consider unbelief as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character of punishment, not of sin, because such ignorance is a result of the sin of our first parents. When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, not because of their sin of unbelief”

Objection 1: It would seem that man is not bound to believe anything explicitly. For no man is bound to do what is not in his power. Now it is not in man's power to believe a thing explicitly, for it is written (Rm. 10:14,15): "How shall they believe Him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent?" Therefore man is not bound to believe anything explicitly.

Reply to Objection 1: If we understand those things alone to be in a man's power, which we can do without the help of grace, then we are bound to do many things which we cannot do without the aid of healing grace, such as to love God and our neighbor, and likewise to believe the articles of faith. But with the help of grace we can do this, for this help "to whomsoever it [Faith] is given from above it is mercifully given; and from whom it is withheld it is justly withheld, as a punishment of a previous, or at least of original, sin’, as Augustine states” (De Corr. et Grat. v, vi [*Cf. Ep. cxc; De Praed. Sanct. viii.]).

So, as was stated above, St. Thomas - the greatest theologian in the history of the Church - believed that invincible ignorance was a punishment for sin, not a means of salvation. I agree with St. Thomas[/quote]. [/quote]

the link has important sections of this bolded, which weren't included in the copy paste

Edited March 23, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c