dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 at least in the extra nulla debate, it's plausible, were one to overlook context clues, to say that 'no salvation outside...' is just a figure of speech, or a general rule like 'fornication means hell' that doesnt account for mitigating development in intention eg youth ignorance etc. but it's virtually impossible to say that 'infants go to hell' means that they go to heaven or can go to heaven. maybe you could squirm it in, similar to as if the extra nulla popes said 'noncatholics go to hell' yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 i should quote this to Rasha, "For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God. from pius the ninth in the 1850s it does give weight to 'mayhbe they werne't so rigid' given they talk about 'no one can be saved' and then go on to say yes they can. but this is a remark in the 1850s, far from the 1100s etc when they were rigid and all those saints who said they can't be saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) dairy, I thought you were hijacking for a second but then I realized that the title of this thread includes [i]Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus[/i]. Yikes! This thread is up there with seppuku and clearly I have nothing to contribute anyway so... Edited May 25, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) i often say this but it bears saying again. i think it was aquanis who seemed to struggle with the teaching, he said perhaps an angel would give the gospel to those who didnt know before they die. he said this, because the teaching that they go to hell was hard. that means he thought it was hard too, which means that is what was taught. then again, he did focus on the aspect that there might be a way out, so that give give lee way to leniency altogether. but his fundamental premise, though, is that if they arne't catholic when they die, stricly speaking, they go to hell. that's why he had to speculate about angels and such... the teaching was clear he lived during those times of controversy, middle ages, ish. Edited May 25, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 i think aquanis is the one who is controversial though, cause he also say baptism of desire is possible. he always seemed, to me, to teach this meant that the person desired to actually be baptized with actual water, which his definitions didn't include non catholics who knew no better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306286101' post='2245565'] "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" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16). [/quote] You have to keep reading [i]Lumen Gentium[/i] #16... it goes on to say how they "may" achieve eternal salvation: "...Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. [u]Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have[i] not yet[/i] arrived at an [i]explicit [/i]knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a [i]preparation [/i]for the Gospel.[/u] She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. [u]Wherefore to promote the glory of God and [i]procure the salvation[/i] of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the [b][i]missions [/i][/b]with care and attention[/u].”" Their sincerity/goodness is a preparation for the Gospel, and their salvation can only be secured through the missionary activity of the Church (i.e., here's some poor native striving to live a good life and so is prepared for the Gospel so God, in His Divine Providence sends a missionary to him that he might be saved). [quote]Pope Pius IX wrote in Quanto conficiamur moerore, 7: There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are [u]able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace[/u] since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.[/quote] These are only able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of "divine light" (which is knowledge) and grace. I would argue that this is an example of some sort of miracle whereby God reveals Himself to someone otherwise incapable of learning the truths of the Faith. Even St. Thomas Aquinas held in [i]De Veritate[/i] that, "Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).." This is also demonstrated in the lives of the Saints: (one example) Venerable Mary of Agreda bilocated no less than 500 times to instruct and convert the native americans and promised them a priest would come to baptize them. When some Franciscan Friars came across the tribe, they found them already catechized and awaiting baptism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306287287' post='2245574'] i think aquanis is the one who is controversial though, cause he also say baptism of desire is possible. he always seemed, to me, to teach this meant that the person desired to actually be baptized with actual water, which his definitions didn't include non catholics who knew no better. [/quote] He didn't teach 'baptism of desire' as a doctrine, but as a theological opinion... which is is. It remains to the holder of it to square said opinion with Catholic dogma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 so you seem to agree with Rasha. interesting quotes and discussion http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2211503841&topic=1908 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306287070' post='2245573'] i often say this but it bears saying again. i think it was aquanis who seemed to struggle with the teaching, he said perhaps an angel would give the gospel to those who didnt know before they die. he said this, because the teaching that they go to hell was hard. that means he thought it was hard too, which means that is what was taught. then again, he did focus on the aspect that there might be a way out, so that give give lee way to leniency altogether. but his fundamental premise, though, is that if they arne't catholic when they do, stricly speaking, they go to hell. that's why he had to speculate about angels and such... the teaching was clear he lived during those times of controversy, middle ages, ish. [/quote] Aquinas affirmed that God is not bound by the sacraments and that there are extraordinary means of salvation such as baptism of desire. You need a broader view of theology on this. The views expressed by Aquinas on this are pretty standard Roman Catholic theology. "The excellence of Christ's power consists in this, that He, Who gave them their power, could institute the sacraments. And since cause does not depend on effect, but rather conversely, it belongs to the excellence of Christ's power, that He could bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the exterior sacrament." - Saint Thomas Aquinas, [i]Summa Theologiae[/i], [i]Tertia Pars[/i], Q. 64, art. 3 "But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament." - Ibid, art. 7 And Fides is misrepresenting the meaning of the theological grades of certitude on this. Not all theological opinions are equal or dubious. The possibility and orthodoxy of the baptism of desire doctrine is well established. My suggestion that there is an analog in the sphere of infant baptism is of course dubious theological speculation (opinion is going to far) but I have not claimed otherwise, so... Edited May 25, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306287699' post='2245577'] so you seem to agree with Rasha. interesting quotes and discussion http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2211503841&topic=1908 [/quote] It's not a matter of some Popes being "rigid" and others not. It's the same truth. The teachings of our contemporary Popes must be seen in light of previous Popes and Councils, etc. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus has the same meaning today as it did when it was formally defined, yes, even by Pope Eugene IV: “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 L_D, I tried to hash out the orthodoxy of 'baptism of desire', but you seem to have given up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) this is a little more 'lenient' contra your reading, though... the Church expressly teaches that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God" (Singulari Quadam), that "outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control" (Singulari Quidem) Edited May 25, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 it's strange that Fides wants to inject 'rigid' understandings into the to me obvious lenient understandings, and LD wants to inject 'lenient' into the obvious to me rigid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306288476' post='2245582'] this is a little more 'lenient' contra your reading, though... the Church expressly teaches that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God" (Singulari Quadam), that "outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control" (Singulari Quidem) [/quote] ... "will not be held guilty of THIS" (i.e., infidelity to a faith of which he was completely ignorant). It doesn't say that ignorance will save him. The latter quotation is part of a larger context in which the Holy Father explicitly says: "The Church clearly declares that the [b]only [/b]hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which teaches the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love. [u]This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church[/u] which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control. The Church teaches and proclaims that if sometimes we can use human wisdom to study the divine word, our wisdom should not for that reason proudly usurp to itself the right of master. Rather, it should act as an obedient and submissive servant, afraid of erring if it goes first and afraid of losing the light of interior virtue and the straight path of truth by following the consequences of exterior words." Again, such a person excused by ignorance will either not be held guilty of the sin of infidelity (but would still be punished for other sins against the natural law, or simply even Original Sin alone); or, if open and honestly seeking the truth would have the Faith revealed to him by either a missionary or some other act of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306288943' post='2245583'] it's strange that Fides wants to inject 'rigid' understandings into the to me obvious lenient understandings, and LD wants to inject 'lenient' into the obvious to me rigid... [/quote] It is not injecting a rigid understanding... it is viewing the teachings of the Church within (as Pope Benedict XVI would say) a "hermeneutic of continuity". The teachings of the Church are the same, they do not change. Edited May 25, 2011 by Fides_et_Ratio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts