Limbo And Extra Ecclesiam

[dairygirl4u2c]

what's the bottom line of your website? you aren't sedevacantist?
do you think that extra sullus and limbo aren't defined yet?
what makes you unique and that you focus on those sorts of issues?
im not seeing it off hand. esp giveen you follow the pope.

[RashaLampa]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1305934875' post='2244000']
what's the bottom line of your website? you aren't sedevacantist?
do you think that extra sullus and limbo aren't defined yet?
what makes you unique and that you focus on those sorts of issues?
im not seeing it off hand. esp giveen you follow the pope.
[/quote]

The bottom line of my website is that there is No Salvation Outside the Church. EENS has been solemnly defined three times:

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” [i][b](Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)[/b][/i]

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” [i][b](Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)[/b][/i]

“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.”[i][b] (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)[/b][/i]

Limbo has not been defined as such but it is inextricably linked to the fact that no one can be saved who is not baptized in water.

What makes me unique? Nothing. I suppose, LOL.

Are you surprised that I am not sedevacantist? I don't get it. The Church is One, Holy, and Apostolic. The various sedevacantist groups are warring sects. They are not "One." Yes, there are problems in the Catholic Church but at least the Church is one in government and in sacraments. The Church has always been called a "light on a Hill." How are small groups of believers that run wild with illicit ordinations a "city on the hill".

Vatican II did not contradict the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. Have a look at this document: [url="http://www.scribd.com/doc/23249763/Vatican-II-and-Extra-Ecclesiam-Nulla-Salus"]http://www.scribd.com/doc/23249763/Vatican-II-and-Extra-Ecclesiam-Nulla-Salus[/url]

The various modern documents, such as the one on limbo are by theological commissions and therefore are a of a very low teaching authority then the dogmatic statements on EENS. The document on limbo is a fallible document.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i thought maybe you'd say that you dont think the pope is infallible. i dont see many of those sorts of catholics, who aren't also flaming liberal quacks or those who dont care etc.

it looks like lumen gentium said it's possible to be saved outside the CC....
(i know it's sometimes debated if that was infallibvle, but)
[quote]
The Church's understanding of the significance of the phrase: "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is expressed in its Catechism of the Catholic Church, 846-848, 851 as follows:

The Church's understanding of the significance of the phrase: "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is expressed in its Catechism of the Catholic Church, 846-848, 851 as follows:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" - How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 14).
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church:
"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]

are you the catholic type that says that the catechism is not necessarily infallible?
even if i thought the CC as infallible, i probably wouldn't insist that the catechism be too... it all goes back to the defintion of infallibility and whether a certain doctument was intended that way etc.

Edited May 21, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also...
[quote]
Council of Trent called Baptism of Desire.

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 able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace 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]

[RashaLampa]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1305990814' post='2244182']
i thought maybe you'd say that you dont think the pope is infallible. i dont see many of those sorts of catholics, who aren't also flaming liberal quacks or those who dont care etc.

it looks like lumen gentium said it's possible to be saved outside the CC....
(i know it's sometimes debated if that was infallibvle, but)


are you the catholic type that says that the catechism is not necessarily infallible?
even if i thought the CC as infallible, i probably wouldn't insist that the catechism be too... it all goes back to the defintion of infallibility and whether a certain doctument was intended that way etc.
[/quote]

It said nothing of the sort. Take a lot at that scribd document I linked to.

[dairygirl4u2c]

what do you make of this?

"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).

[RashaLampa]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1305990814' post='2244182']
are you the catholic type that says that the catechism is not necessarily infallible?

[/quote]


Yes I am and Cardinal Ratzinger is that type of Catholic as well:

"The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess." (Page 26, Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church) See the direct Link [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=U9IPGI1-sbkC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=%22doctrines+which+the+Catechism+presents+receive+no+other+weight+than+that%22&source=bl&ots=rnudnLPoSF&sig=40ExWpfD2Jp1XrOqQlZC7pOloeY&hl=en&ei=BZ8FTbjWI8mcnwfJ78HlDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22doctrines%20which%20the%20Catechism%20presents%20receive%20no%20other%20weight%20than%20that%22&f=false"]Here[/url]


Catechisms are not infallible documents. Catechisms are not part of the solemn magisterial teaching of the Church. They are only infallible, where they reiterate defined doctrine. Even the Catechism of Trent is not per se infallible, but only in the same qualified sense. The Jesuits, for example, refused to abide by the Trent Catechism on the question of efficacious grace and the freedom of the will. The Catechism favored the Thomistic view, which emphasized the movement of the free will by grace. The Jesuits emphasized the free will's cooperation with the grace. Both opinions are free to be held, so long as the two extremes of Jansenism, on the one side, and Pelagianism on the other are avoided. If a catechism teaches a novel doctrine, then that cannot be part of the ordinary magisterium. The ordinary magisterium must measure with the solemn magisterium, it is not a parallel magisterium. Basically the famous principle laid down by St, Vincent of Lerins defines what came to be known as the "ordinary magisterium." That is of Catholic Faith which has been believed "semper, ubique, et ab omnibus." (always, everywhere, and by all.)

[RashaLampa]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1305991433' post='2244188']
what do you make of this?

"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]

Sure, they [i]may[/i] achieve salvation. Notice it doesn't say [i]how[/i] they can achieve salvation.

[RashaLampa]

[quote]
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. 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 able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of [u][i][b]divine light and grace[/b][/i][/u]. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

[/quote]

DIVINE LIGHT-----> This is key here.

Also let's not forget about the paragraph that comes after.
[quote]


8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11]


[url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm"]http://www.papalency...09/p9quanto.htm[/url]

[/quote]

Fr. Brian Harrison, a theologian and professor at a Pontifical University specifically dealt with this issue of the invincible ignorance mentioned by Pius IX:
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Harrison_%28theologian%29"]http://en.wikipedia....28theologian%29[/url]

Nothing the Pope says implies that anyone who is still invincibly ignorant of Christ at the moment of death can be saved. By specifying those who are "zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts", who are "ready to obey God", and who "live an honest and upright life", Pius IX shows that he is talking primarily about the habitual conduct of people during the normal, active period of their lives, prior to their last agony. And he is saying that such persons "can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life" (emphasis added). These words are worth reflecting on. The Pope is saying that to be saved, they will need more than just "grace"; they will also need (and will in fact be offered) "divine light". That of course means illumination of the mind. And the New Testament uses the analogy of "light" to mean precisely the knowledge of (i.e, explicit belief in) the Gospel, in contrast to the "darkness" of those still in Judaism or paganism (cf. Eph 5: 8, I Thess 5: 4-5; Col. 1: 12-13; I Peter 2: 9; 2 Cor. 4: 3-4; 2 Tim. 1: 10).

In short, the reference for the need for "light", as well as "grace" to assist persons invincibly ignorant of the Gospel at least insinuates an EENS position, although without unequivocally asserting it.

Some 'implicit faith' advocates object that if the Pope had wanted to teach the need for explicit faith in Christ, he would not have needed to include anything about good-willed non-Christians who are invincibly ignorant of the true religion. For (according to these objectors) it would seem practically redundant and trivial for him to issue a teaching that amounts to saying, "There is no salvation outside the Church; but those in invincible ignorance of the Church will, if they keeping striving for truth and goodness, eventually overcome that ignorance and so will be joined to the Church before death". But I do not concede that this papal gloss on to the ancient dogma is in fact redundant or trivial. On the contrary, it serves to obviate a false and superficial interpretation of the dogma which has in fact needlessly scandalized many over the centuries, namely, the interpretation of those who think extra Ecclesiam nulla salus implies an unjust, arbitrary and merciless God who eternally punishes multitudes of
people merely for failing to obey a commandment of which they were invincibly ignorant. Pius IX's two carefully worded interventions clearly rule out that distorted reading of the dogma.

Edited May 21, 2011 by RashaLampa

[dairygirl4u2c]

'may doesn't say how'... isn't that doing just what the other catholics, the 'lienient teaching' catholisc, are doing, by saying 'it depends on what you mean by 'catholic''' and other such loop de loop? it looks like he's intending to be lenient, that there's a possibilty they could be saved even as not explicilt catholics. this is bolstered by teh fact that all the catholis now believe that, it shows the intention of the pope if the catholics he teaches believe something, i dont even have to quote people, we all know that's true. you are a gem amongst catholics for your position, you cant deny.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you seem to know some decent arguments against yourself, which i'd also go along with (noting mostly my last post, though)
[quote]For (according to these objectors) it would seem practically redundant and trivial for him to issue a teaching that amounts to saying, "There is no salvation outside the Church; but those in invincible ignorance of the Church will, if they keeping striving for truth and goodness, eventually overcome that ignorance and so will be joined to the Church before death". [/quote]


it doesn't looks like pius ix is going along with your theory either, as i quoted earlier

[quote]also...

Quote

Council of Trent called Baptism of Desire.

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 able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace 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]

it looks like he's saying they 'may' be saved too

[dairygirl4u2c]

'may v. how'. i suppose it's possible he's just trying to be politically correct, it'd have to be this for that theory to work.
i think i do remember some catholics here tryingout that argument before, so i suppose you're not alone. they usually revert back to thinks like 'depends on what you mean by 'catholic'', though

[RashaLampa]

I see your point, but it is well known, and I believe Paul VI said it that Vatican II did not intend to define any new Dogmas. Also, Pope Benedict has been saying that Vatican II needs to be interpreted in the light of tradition. Just the fact that it can be "interpreted" means it is NOT a dogmatic council (Dogma cannot be interpreted but must only be accepted, to say otherwise is modernism). Statements that are weaker in authority need to be interpreted in light of the dogmatic definitions. For over 2000 years the Church has consistently believed that there is no salvation outside of her, therefore to interpret Lumen Gentium to say that there IS salvation outside the Church would be interpreting Vatican II as a rupture with tradition. In this sense, many "conservative" Catholics make the same error as the sedevacantists.

[RashaLampa]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1305993403' post='2244202']
'may doesn't say how'... isn't that doing just what the other catholics, the 'lienient teaching' catholisc, are doing, by saying 'it depends on what you mean by 'catholic'''
[/quote]

No it is not because I have three dogmatic definitions that tell me exactly that upon the peril of my own soul I must believe that there is NO salvation outside the Church. Vatican II however can be taken every which way. I accept Vatican II but it is ambiguous.

[i][b]A conscience cannot be bound to ambiguity. A conscience can only be bound to specifics. [/b][/i]

[i]For example, If a Pope were to write a dogmatic statement about stealing being a sin it would look like this:

"Whoever says stealing is not a sin, let him be anathema." (This is clear, concise, it allows for no interpretation. It is a proposition that must be accepted.)


If Vatican II were to "talk" about stealing it would look something like this: "As humankind journeys through this path that we call life people feel a sense of need welling up inside of them and therefore pick up an object that they are not the owners of." (This is open to interpretation and is not necessarily about stealing. I pick up things all the time that are not mine but I don't steal them. At the same time this does not CONTRADICT the fact that stealing is a sin, it is just ambigous) [/i]

Edited May 21, 2011 by RashaLampa

[dairygirl4u2c]

just so my stance is known. as a former catholic, i can appreciate the need to say 'the only way there's not a contradiction is if...' etc etc
i say that, because it seems that is what the above poster is doing. but as someone discerning the truth of the matter, that's not good enough. what pius said, and other 'may' quotes say, are clear. you'd have to read ambiguity into them. the sedevacantists positions are probably the most compelling, in actuality. i'm not sure how they get to the idea that the popes are not proper, but that's the only way you'd be able to get out of it.
i do appreciate that folks like above poster, traditionalists, sedevacantists etc push their positions, cause it contradicts modern catholics, but says what those modern catholics are unwilling to say.. that olden teaching was strict, and clear.