Ccc Paragraph 841 (re Muslims)

[Chrysologus]

I don't agree with your delegation of baptism of desire from a doctrine to private revelation (which is what those other things you cited are, and, incidentally, the church declares those to be "worthy of belief," not "borderline heresy") based on the Catechism's use of the word "conviction." The definition of the word "conviction" is "a fixed or firm belief" (Webster's). Prove to me that using the word "conviction" means something isn't doctrine but a private revelation. Furthermore, the Catechism doesn't contain anything about Fatima or the Green Scapular because the Catechism only contains doctrine. The fact that the paragraph doesn't cite a reference doesn't mean that it's not doctrine. Many paragraphs in the Catechism don't cite references. If you require more proof, I'll point out that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued documents which re-affirm this teaching while also re-affirming that there is no salvation outside the church (these two doctrines are, of course, connected by the doctrine of baptism of desire, see Dominus Iesus). Fr. John Hardon's Pocket Catholic Dictionary also declares "baptism of desire" to be part of the church's teaching and then quotes Vatican II, which brings me to my final proof.

The Second Vatican Council, an infallible, ecumenical council lead by the pope, universal pastor of all Christians, TEACHES baptism of desire:

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, Constitution on the Church, I, 16

In the words of the great Pope Pius IX:

Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.

Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus

He was, of course, referring to the Immaculate Conception, but things declared by ecumenical councils are no less binding than those delared by popes acting singularly and his words are equally applicable.

I urge you to change your convictions to match the teachings of the church and abandon the cruel and unpleasant belief that non-Catholics are automatically damned. On the contrary, "God shows no partiality. Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him" (Acts 10:34-35).

Does anyone wanna back me up here? Good Friday? jasJis? Winchester? Ironmonk? I know you guys want to! This matter ought to be laid to rest by now. Rome has spoken!

[cmotherofpirl]

Baptism of desire is taught by the Catholic Church.

So is Baptism of Blood.

Civility is a virtue we all try for on this board.

TRy it.

[Chrysologus]

Thank you, cmother. I try to be civil. Sometimes I succeed.

[ironmonk]

Romans 2:12

All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it.

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.

15 They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them

16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people's hidden works through Christ Jesus.

The Catechism is a definitive source of the Catholic faith. It is Truth.

Muslims do have a chance at salvation... end of story.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[cmotherofpirl]

Thank you, cmother. I try to be civil. Sometimes I succeed.

You always succeed chrys.

And when you don't you apologize immediately.

:)

[Chrysologus]

You always succeed chrys.

And when you don't you apologize immediately.

Thank you. Your compliments are like sunshine on a cloudy day.

[Don John of Austria]

When the Bishops speak together in union with Rome, they are infallible.

What does together mean 51% 60% 75 % what? if you mean all then there has never been such a statement.

[ICTHUS]

Muslims worship the one true God because they acknowledge him as the God of Abraham and Creator of the universe. This does not mean that their worship is acceptable to him through Jesus Christ, which is what those Bible verses you cited are about.

Chrysologous,

Explained like that, the idea makes sense.

You are basically saying that although they worship the same God, they do not have the True Faith, their worship is not acceptable to God, and if they are given the opportunity to hear the Gospel and reject it (the Gospel) and do not recieve baptism and become a Christian, they will not be saved...no?

However, having been a Protestant for so long, CCC 841 would have been immediately condemned as heretical in my mind up until about 8 months ago, this is going to take a lot more study and prayer.

I believe in the Authority of the Catholic Church, but my brain still functions, and parts of my heart still function, like a Protestant.

Thank you for your help.

God bless,

Ryan

Edited August 16, 2003 by ICTHUS

[Chrysologus]

I believe in the Authority of the Catholic Church, but my brain still functions, and parts of my heart still function, like a Protestant.

I know what you mean. For some reason I still hear Catholics things and then think "How would this sound to a Protestant?" But it doesn't matter what Protestants think and I want to stop thinking about things like that. It's annoying.

[ICTHUS]

I didn't say, however that I believe it yet. But, the way Chrysologous explained it makes sense.

I said I would study it, and consider it prayerfully...

God bless,

Ryan

[cmotherofpirl]

Ryan I have found it my journey, that if I accept something that the Church teaches on faith and obedience, the understanding usually appears.

Faith preceeds understanding.

There are some things I will never understand, that the Church properly calls mysteries. And if there is something I have accepted on faith and the understanding never comes, I assume the defect is in MYSELF and not the Catholic Church.

That sounds easy, but it has been a great stumbling block for many converts.

Cradle Catholics growing up in the US and Canada have a different problem. THey are so used to dissent and talk about rights, that they forget these do not properly apply to Catholicism, and are unpleasantly surprised when the Church refuses to conform to their particular standards.

[dabukthumpa]

"I don't agree with your delegation of baptism of desire from a doctrine to a private revelation (which is what those other things you cited are, and incidentally, the church declares those to be "worthy of belief," not borderline heresy")

Let's stop right there for a moment:  First and foremost I have done nothing other than use the Catechism and the documents of Vatican II themselves to state my premises (other than the council of Florence, Trent, and Vatican I).  Secondly - The very first time I posted in this discussion - I stated that I do not believe the Second Vatican Council to be heretical - I simply stated (in the Words of Pope Paul VI, who sanctioned the Council) that Vatican II does not contain "extraordinary statements with a note of infallibility." This means that Vatican II does not contain any definitions of doctrine or specifically worded dogmatic canons, and therefore, it is not on the same level as other ecumenical councils. Vatican II's documents were written in lengthy essay form, not in canonical form. Because of this, Vatican II's documents often lend themselves to being diversely interpreted.  I will go even further to profess (so that all doubt may be cast aside) that the Second Vatican Council is my authority, as are the rest of the papal decrees and ecumenical councils of the past. There is not one teaching of the Second Vatican Council I reject, nor any under which I do not put myself.

Now to the matter at hand - I will be frank and from the looks of things it looks like you have taken some of my comments to be a bit forceful - for that misunderstanding - I extend my apologies.  But time and time again you have missed the very points I have made, and have taken what I have said and twisted it.  Point taken from where I have you quoted above - you refer to the private revelations I used as examples as implying that I was holding the point that those who believe in them are in "borderline heresy"  That could not be farther from the point!!!  I used that statement to imply that you could not hold the position that someone can just be a jolly old good person and bingo they are saved, not in reference to Our Lady of Fatima or the Brown Scapular.  Universal Salvation in the sense that "The Church is not neccssary nor sacramental baptism for Salvation" is nowhere ever taught by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - it is actually taught otherwise - and I have gotten the feeling that this is hard for you to accept but The Necessity of the Church and of Sacramental Baptism for Salvation is Dogma of the Church.

Now Whether or not you agree with me about baptism of Desire is a different subject.  I have simply made the argument that Baptism of Desire is not an infallibly taught Doctrine of the Church - either by a Pope - or by an Ecumenical Council.  Does the Church teach that it holds out as a possibility for Salvation "Baptism of Desire" YES it does! (but not infallibly by any Pope or Ecumenical council). And as you and I have made clear we can find that in the Catachism.  There is a huge difference between what the Church Professes as Articles of FAITH and that which she teaches as a possibility or a conviction of Hers!  Which is why the Catachism states in paragraph 1257 (in order to lay the foundation of its premise for salvation (so that we can all properly understand in what context she is "teaching" regarding Baptism of Desire.

Paragraph 1257 States:  "The Church does not know of ANY OTHER MEANS other than Baptism that ASSURES entry into eternal beatitude....."

Now if the Church is so certain of "Baptism of Desire" then why does She make the statement that "She does not know of any other means...that ASSURES."  Obviously she knows of the principle of "Baptisme of Desire"?  She makes this statement because that is exactly what she means!  The Church only knows for Certain that which Christ gave to us explicitly for the Graces of Salvation - The Sacrament of Baptism!  That is plain and simple. 

"The definition fo the word "conviction" is a "fixed or firm belief" (websters). Prove to me that using the word Conviction means something isn't doctrine but a private revelation. Furthermore, the Catachism doesn't contain anything about Fatima of the Green Scapular because the Catechism only contains doctrine."

WoW!!! You couldn't have mixed up my words any better. First - I used the examples of Our Lady of Fatima and of the Brown Scapular to show that the Church has Firm Convictions about certain things and while she does - these things themselves are not Church Doctrine - Nowhere was I even trying to prove that just because the Church uses a word like conviction that it couldn't ever possibly be a doctrine and that if the word was used then it most certainly must be private revelation. Secondly, The Catachism states in paragraph 67 that "through out the ages, there have been so-called 'private - revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not however belong to the Deposit of Faith" Furthermore - my whole point from my example that I gave regarding convictions is right here - in the Catachism!! Our Lady of Fatima and the Brown Scapular do not need to be found in the Catachism to prove my point - Yet you and I both know that these two private revelations are approved by the Church - and if we want to take it a step further - can be implied into paragraph 67!! Thirdly, this paragraph itself disproves your last comment, "because the Catachism only contains doctrine" HUGE STATEMENT to make!!!! Certainly, I believe that the Catachism contains a summary of the Doctrines of the Church, but to say that the "Catachism ONLY contains doctrine" - that is not farther from the Truth:

example: Paragraph 67 - since there are private-revelations in the Church, and even some with which the Church recognizes - these in fact are NOT part of the Deposit of Faith! If private-revelations are not Doctrine - then why are they in the Catachism which according to you "ONLY contains doctrine"?!?

Why is mention on "Lection Divina" and the "Rosary" in the Catachism (CCC 2708) when neither of these is Doctrine of the Church - one does not even have to use these methods of prayer to grow in holiness or be a faithful Catholic!!

I could go on and on - by I think your integrity in on the line.

"If you require more proof, I'll point out that the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith has issued documents which re-affirm this teaching while also re-affirming that there is no salvation outside the Church (these two doctrines are, of course, connected by the doctrine of "baptism of desire", see dominus Iesus).  Fr. John Hardon's Pocket Catholic Dictionary also declares "baptism of desire" to be part of the Church's teaching and then quotes Vatian II."

First, Fr. John Harden's pocket dictionary is hardly the source in which you should lay rest an argument.  Fr. Harden's interpretation of Vatican II are merely fallible interpretations - and ultimately carry no weight.

Secondly, I have taken the time to re-read Dominus Iesus and no where does Dominus Ieuses use the words "Baptism of Desire" or imply that this "Doctrine is what connects the proper understanding of the Dogma "No Salvation Outside the Church" with the principle of "Bapstism of Desire."  Does the document leave open the "posibility" that someone not explicitly in the Catholic Church can come to Salvation?  Yes it does - but it leaves it at that!  That whatever that Grace is - it is only known to God - and it must come from and Through Jesus Christ.  However, the document made it very clear that there exists one true Church of Christ - which Subsists In the Catholic Church, that this Church is Necesary for Salvation, and it dispelled the notions of Religious Plurism - that "one faith was as good as another"!  This document has done nothing to prove me wrong - it has only substantiated my position that I have taken from the beginning.

"The Second Vatican Council, an infallible, ecumenical council lead by the Pope, universal pastor of all Christians, TEACHES baptism of desire: "Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but 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 two may achieve eternal salvation." (Lumun Gentium, n. 16)

I do not know where or how you pull up the doctrine of "baptism of desire" from this statement. But the citing of this one paragraph does NOT teach "baptism of desire" your reading your own bias into the text! Rather it simply teaches what it says! That one "MAY" (not one WILL) attain eternal salvation who - "through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, moved by grace, trying in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience" BUT as CCC 1257 states ... "The Church does not know of any means other than baptism that ASSURES entry into eternal Beatitude..."

Dominus Iesus makes this almost exact statement: (SEE Chapter VI n. 20 paragraph 3 - and footnotes) - nowhere in either is the words - or the statement that this is "baptism of desire."

I think in order for you to quite reading into the Church's statements your own bias opinions - you should read more carefully what the Catechism has said regarding the principle of "baptism of desire".

CCC: 1258-1259 "The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for THE SAKE OF THE FAITH without having recieved baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This baptism of blood, like the desire for baptism, brings about the fruits of baptism without being a sacrament.

For catachumens who die before their Baptism, their EXPLICIT DESIRE to recieve it, together with repentence for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to recieve through the sacrament."

Now - you might say - A HA- 'I have got you' right here the Church says this desire 'assures' - but I had said that the Church only knows that the Sacrament of Baptism assures. I do not believe the Church is contradicting itself here - I believe exactly what it says - that "it knows of no other means other than the Sacrament of Baptism" but in knowing that God is above the Sacrament - in the case of EXPLICIT DESIRE (complete knowledge of what the Church is, and the saving power of baptism) then the Church leaves open the assurence that God will Save that person) That however is not used in the same sense as Paragraph 1257, since paragraph 1257 sets the tone for the discussion of this principle.

Now to the understanding of "Baptism of Desire" - these paragraphs in the Catachism make it very clear that the person dying before they recieve the actual Sacrament of Baptism - have already come to a saving knowledge of the True Faith and the Saving Truths the Church Professes - which following good logic would mean the knowledge of the Necessity of Baptism for Salvation. This is the proper understanding - and it is here where one can safely assume that if Baptism was offered these people they would have gladly accepted - God knows the heart. However in the quote you gave me from Vatican II - this quote is not implying or even saying anything close to what these two paragraphs of the Catachism have said regarding "baptism of desire" - not even close - it is a vain attempt to read into something that has nothing to do with what you propose.

In the words of the great Pope Pius IX:  Hence, if anyone shall dare--which God forbid! --to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgement; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own actions he incurs the penalities established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart." Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus

Come on - now I can just as easily take this quote and apply it to your own erronious positions!  I have already proven that you take many things out of context - and because of this you yourself hold and publically profess teachings other than what the Church has explicitly taught.

But to humor you - I thought it would be interesting to Quote some more of Pope Pius IX to see exactly where He stood regarding this issue of the Church and Baptism. 

(All of my sources are from "Denzinger" Sources of Catholic Dogma, and "Dr. Ludwig Ott" Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

"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, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God."  (Pope Pius IX Singulari quadem)

Pius IX leaves room for the possibility of "invinceable ignorance" but in the same letter he makes it clear that "Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things?"  In other words these in themselves are not suffiecient grounds as to just freely throw out that everyone has "invinceable ignorace" - this would be crazy - and ultimatly as he makes clear - would undermine the mission of the Church - a mission given to her by Christ!

"Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one shold have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ.  Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition after death of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic Faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion.  Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinate; far from us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and judgements of God which are "a great deep" (Ps. 35:7) and cannot be penetrated by human thought.  But, as is our Apostolic duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and viligence to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to DRIVE FROM THE MIND OF MEN THAT IMPIOUS AND EQUALLY FATAL OPINION, namely, THAT THE WAY OF ETERNAL SALVATION CAN BE FOUND IN ANY RELIGION WHATSOEVER." (Pope Pius IX: Singulari quadem)

20. The necessity for membership of the Church (Ludwig Ott - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)

Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation (De Fide) meanding Dogma of the Church.

"Fourth Latern Council (1215) declared: "The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved"

This was the teaching also of the Council of Florence, and of the Popes Innocent III, Bonifice VIII in the Bull "Unam Sanctum", Clement VI, Benedict XIV, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius XII (in his encyclical "Mystici Corporis")" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 312)

It is also important that the footnotes in "Fundamental of Cathlolic Dogma"  that a proper understanding of this dogma - is not "merely a necessity of precept" but also a necessity of means" leaving the description of these means as (I) invincible ignorance (2) incapability, and (3) desire for possibilities of salvation for one who is not explicitly inside the Church.  However, none of these principles are taught as Dogma - nor referred to as Doctrine of the Church (De Fide).

Lastly,

"God shows no partiality. Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him" (Acts 10:34-35)

I hope you were not implying that this scripture text somehow proves your vain attempts to make "baptism of desire" a doctrine! You should have cited where this text comes from in Acts. It comes from the "Baptism of Cornelious"! Peter in His vision was told that the Gentiles are no longer considered unclean - and Peter in making this remark is affirming the Word of God that came to Him! This scripture text is far from a proof for "baptism of desire". It that were the case then Peter would have known that Cornelious' desire would "certainly assure" him the grace of Salvation, but we know this is not true because Scripture tells us that Jesus Mandated the Apostles to Baptize, and Peter Himself baptizes Cornelious!

My convictions are completely in line with the Living Faith of the Church - and no where Have I stated the "unpleasant belief that non-catholics are automatically damned!" If I have please show me where I have made this exact statement - the truth is you can't. So before you go putting words into my mouth - I would ask that you only debate fairly and justly.

Dominus Vobiscum

[Dave]

What does together mean 51% 60% 75 % what? if you mean all then there has never been such a statement.

It just means those who are in union with Rome. If they disagree with the Pope, it means they're not in union with Rome. If the Pope taught something and only 10 bishops agreed but they taught it in union with him, the teaching would be infallible.

To those who question the Catechism -- watch out. To refuse to submit to the Church authority is a mortal sin.