Loading ...
I know that Iacobus is at home right now, with nothing to do besides twiddle his thumbs, read AngelQueen, and talk on the phone with his grandmother. I’m not demeaning such pastimes, to be sure, and I myself have spent many an hour in the company of my grandma, but now, I want Iacobus to put his keen mind to work on some questions which are vexing me. Of course, I’d like to hear from the rest of our readers as well.
Last night, I read the latest interview with Bishop Rifan. With each passing day, that prelate strikes me as more and more of a functionary of the Nervous Disorder. (That was the first shot, to get Iacobus’ attention; he reads very quickly, so you need a thing or two to arrest his speeding eyes.) This was the first thing that caught my attention:
Q. Do you think there are sufficient grounds for the Pope to grant the second precondition — lifting the decrees of excommunications (or declaring them null and void) against the bishops of the SSPX and Archbishop Castro de Mayer?
A. The Pope can lift the decree of excommunication, as a sign of benevolence, in order to facilitate the conversations with the SSPX. That was my suggestion [to the Pope] during the conversations.
But it is not all. After this lifting of the decree of excommunications, they will be in the similar condition of the Greek Orthodox, from whom the Pope [Paul VI in 1964] lifted the decree of excommunication too. Afterwards, they will need the canonical regularization and the correction of doctrinal mistakes.
Oh, indeed, will they, Bishop Rifan? And which doctrinal mistakes does Bishop Rifan think are in need of correction? I imagine that those who are not so friendly to the Society will say that the first mistake was a failure of obedience to papal authority, that is, in the consecrations of the bishops. Whether this was a mistake, I don’t know, God knows, but it wasn’t a doctrinal mistake. Indeed, the Society has insisted upon the papal authority when the recent pontiffs have been trying to siphon it off, per impossibile, to various bishops’ conferences around the world; collegiality and all that rot.
Further, if the Pope Benedict does remove the decree of excommunication, neither side is going to say that they were wrong. In the same way that no one said they were wrong when Campos’ canonical situation was officially put in order. I just don’t think that the ordinations were what Bishop Rifan has in mind.
Does he mean the Council? There’s nothing for them to accept, nothing de fide- it happened, it was an unmitigated disaster, and here we are. But perhaps he means by “doctrine” the so-called pastoral doctrines of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. And this is where I become very suspicious. If Bishop Rifan means something like the decree on religious liberty, so-called, what he is referring to as “doctrine” is actually a matter of dogma, but a dogma which the Society defends, and much of the rest of the “Teaching Church”, whatever that is, obscures or outright denies.
So what are these doctrinal mistakes?
Finally, Rifan wanted to reiterate for the interview’s readers the reasons why we do NOT conserve the old rite of the Mass (as opposed to the proper reasons why we do conserve it). These are two of the bad reasons, given by Bishop Rifan, for conserving the old rite. First:
Would it be because we deny the power of the Pope to modify and promulgate liturgical laws? This would be against the Pope’s supreme power dogma!
Down, boy! Of course, as the First Vatican Council says, the pope exercises supreme and absolute power throughout the whole Church and at all times - if only Benedict would do more of this exercising! But the so-called “Pope’s supreme power dogma” (try taking that phrasing of it to an ecumenism conference) isn’t unlimited - he can’t command the sky to fall. Notice another kind of constraint on God’s power: He’s got all the power there is, but He still can’t make a square circle. There are things God can’t do because they can’t be done. And there are things that popes can’t do, besides things like not being able to lift St. Peter’s and set it down on top of Castel Sant’Angelo, because they can’t be done, period. The Pope cannot, for instance, teach error ex cathedra. (At this point, some George Weigel Catholic, not reading carefully, will come along and allege that I’ve denied the “Pope’s supreme power dogma.” And I have, that is, denied some ridiculous reading of it. I hope that that reader finds this painful.)
Now it is a question raised by Msgr. Klaus Gamber what power the Pope has with respect to the destruction of the Roman Mass, whether a pope could sweep away the Mass of tradition, and give another in its stead; Ratzinger wrote the preface to this book. Rifan is attempting to obscure the relevant issue: no one is denying that the pope can modify liturgical practice. But the Novus Ordo Missae is hardly a simple modifcation of liturgical practice.
Second:
Would it be because we just consider the New Mass, or Paul VI’s Mass, invalid, heterodox, sinful, sacrilegious, or not Catholic? These statements would be against Church’s indefectibility dogma and unity of cult dogma, and they have already received the Teaching Church’s anathema. Therefore, it [the Novus Ordo's promulgation] is a universal liturgical law, promulgated by Church’s supreme authority 34 years ago and adopted unanimously by the whole Teaching Church.
Would someone please tell me what the “whole Teaching Church” is and whether it has any authority to adopt anything unanimously or otherwise? Can the “Teaching Church” adopt things on a three-quarters majority? What about two-thirds?
I say nothing about “invalid, heterodox, sinful, or sacrilegious.” All I’m going to say is that any fool who has ever darkened the door of a Lutheran or Anglican church knows that the concoction of Paul VI is an aping of the protestant service. Whether the rituals of heretics and those bent on the destruction of the Church have any place in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a question which I’ll not deign to answer.
And tell me, Iacobus (or someone): what in the world is the “unity of cult dogma”? I know Bishop Rifan can’t mean that this dogma indicates that Mass is said in the exactly the same way on every altar around the world, as though by an army of preprogramed robot priests. If it were as easy Bishop Rifan makes it sound, the unity of cult dogma is denied by the nature of the Novus Ordo Missae which allows for rampant experimention, exploitation, self-expression, spontaneous gestures, movements of the spirit, and the like rot. I mean, if the Novus Ordo could somehow replace the Roman Rite of the Mass (the Mass of St. Pius V), and as I said already, it’s a question whether it could, the successful installment of the Novus Ordo would indeed be the end of the Church’s “unity of cult dogma.”
Presumably, he means by “unity of cult dogma” that the same Sacrifice is offered by every Catholic priest who offers the Sacrifice - and this is true, regardless of the pecularities of time, place, the priest’s haircut, language, etc. But the SSPX has never denied that the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass, only that, very probably, in many particular cases, it is not valid. I think that this is not a huge worry, I mean, that all these putatively valid Masses were actually invalid; as we were discussing here about Baptism, the Church makes it easy for the sacraments to be valid. But it wasn’t for nothing that the old Breviary had this wonderful “Formula of Intention before Mass” - look for it, you won’t find it a new Breviary. It goes:
I wish to celebrate Mass, and to confect the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the rite of the Roman Church, to the praise of Almighty God and of the whole heavenly Court, unto my benefit and the benefit of the whole Church militant, for all who have commended themselves to my prayers, in general and in particular, and for the felicitous state of the holy Roman Church. Amen.
Anyway, that quotation rather distracts me from my dialogue with Iacobus about how wonderful of a character Bishop Rifan is. I am interested to hear thoughts!
(Also, I really liked the commentary here by JAM. He is speculating on what the gesture of good will might be to which Bishop Rifan, in the interview, and Cardinal Ricard, a little while back, have referred.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Johnboy, I gave up a long time on trying to persuade you of anything. We speak on different levels. However, I think I’ll try again.
You state that the matters in question are ones of revelation. Agreed . . . well, not entirely. The doctrine of sola scriptura is not revealed, it is fabricated. It is a lie. It is false not only because it contradicts the true Catholic, revealed truth. If you had to know the Catholic teaching on tradition in order to see the problem with sola scriptura, you’d be right. However, sola scriptura is wrong simply because it contradicts reason. You need people to interpret even the most straightforward, literal texts. The Bible itself says so. Protestants see their congregations broken up by sinful disagreements in which both sides appeal to sola scriptura. It is obvious that sola scriptura is wrong, as it contradicts both right reason and experience. An observant protestant should see that sola scriptura is wrong, and that protestantism is therefore wrong. He doesn’t need to know that Catholicism is true to know this. (A guy I know, of no religious faith, said that if he were a Christian he’d have to take Catholicism over Protestantism simply to avoid the squabbling sectarianism — this from a guy operating according to natural reason alone.) And if he continues defending sola scriptura despite what he sees and what his common sense — and his heart — tells him, and what his KJV tells him, he’s just as much a formal heretic as if he’d been raised Catholic and rejected the truth. For he is rejecting the truth, period. When he gets to the Last Judgment, Our Lord will say, “You are going to Hell for rejecting the Catholic Church.” The guy will say, “Lord, I didn’t know that was the right church. When did I willingly reject it in bad faith?” “When you rejected what your right reason told you about sola scriptura, you rejected my Church’s teaching.” Sound familiar? Or does that sort of reasoning apply only to the *corporal* works of mercy? So the truth of Catholicism may not be clear enough to alot of people to make them guilty for explicitly rejecting it. However, the falsehoods of heresy, as revealed in *SELF-contradictions* — which natural reason tells us are false — these are sufficient to damn.
Furthermore, I admit that there are people who are material heretics and schismatics. I refuse to admit that they are the majority of American adult non-Catholics today, however, or else all of these people would convert when they heard about Catholicism. If these people really were devoted to truth, then they would hear the call of the Church. Some of them do seek truth, and do they do receive it. We consider this an act of Providence. So with other sincere seekers does God simply fall asleep at the switch?
Consider, this too. Since 1930, most prot. sects, and certainly the mainstream ones, don’t consider artificial contraception a sin. This is a sin against nature, in addition to against revelation. The average prot. belongs to a religious organization that can’t even get the natural law right, yet following the natural law is one of the prerequisites for being in a state of grace. Either he knowingly follows a religion that condones, or worse, shrugs at immorality, or he personally is so far removed from even natural morality that he can’t see it.
As for the schismatics, the men in question in this post are the *leaders* of the sect, not shepherds on Crete. They either a) have read/heard all the Catholic claims but reject them anyway or b) have not read/heard them all. If a), then what’s left? They aren’t ignorant. If these people are really praying to God to lead them to all truth, and to make them good shepherds of their flock, then are we to fault God for not telling them what to do? If b), then they are slothful, for they haven’t investigated how to heal the schism.
Can I say that any individual is guilty (other than myself)? Can I read souls? No. Walking up to any given person I would not (or, rather, I pray that I would not) presume his/her guilt. I can’t even accept on face value that they are guilty before God even if they tell me they are — that’s God’s judgment, not mine. However, if we can call people formal heretics, etc., as Johnboy does with the SSPX, then I do so with the bulk of the adult population of non-Catholics, in the US certainly. St. Thomas Aquinas presented a case in which a man could sleep with another man’s wife without knowing it — material adultery. I guess it can happen, so I can’t presume that anyone committing adultery has done so “formally.” Yet if adultery happened daily to millions of men and women and had become a sanctioned part of everyday life, I would have to say that, on the whole, the people involved were doing it culpably, regardless of the “presumption of innocence.”
In other words, if I were to assume that all of these people were innocent, I’d also have to assume that they ignorant of the most basic natural reason and morality, of the most basic facts of history, of the truths that their own religions do in fact convey to them, etc. To say they’re “invincibly ignorant” of *that* stuff is worse than to call them evil, it’s to call them congenitally retarded. I’d rather chalk up massive failings to a defective will than defective intelligence. To do otherwise smells of pretentious affirmative action — of course these fools couldn’t “get” the Immaculate Conception, even if we tried to explain it!
There, against my qualms, I’ve written. Time will tell if I should have followed Iosephus’ advice.
“You’re screwed up on the Jesus’ injuction that “I will lead you unto all truth.” He is speaking of the Church, in particular the modern day “magisterium.” If God was to magically give Protestants the truth if they pray for it they would in essence be another Catholic Church.”
Nice try, but not at all the passage I had in mind. I was thinking of “Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you.” I understand that God said that to anyone who prays sincerely. He will not refuse truth to the seeker, regardless of what religion that seeker belongs to. When Augustine the Manichean prays for truth, God will send him Ambrose the Catholic. Likewise with Cornelius the ex-Pagan, Newman the ex-Anglican, Black Elk the ex-Pagan medicine man, etc., etc.
“I would additionally note that God isn’t able to turn people as easily as you seem to point…that is through a miraculous hearing of God’s “voice”…it is a long process that is often halted by the fact that truth is not often dispensed properly to non-Catholics.”
I don’t believe that the conversion necessarily will be automatic. The person may have to persist in his/her quest through several different religions. He may have to put up with false or misinformed “Catholics.” I agree with you. It may be very, very difficult to lay to rest falsehoods imbibed innocently from family and friends. Agreed. My only point is that the sincere person will go through it all.
I additionally note that lots of people convert almost without any major difficulties. The natives of Mexico converted en masse after Our Lady of Guadelupe appeared. Because intellectual Catholics write the books about conversion, I think that there may be distortion as to how a typical conversion works. My father converted (he had been Methodist, and I guess “evangelical,” decades before) on his deathbed. Surprisingly (to me, at least), he was attracted to the idea of Confession and it posed no problem to him. Some people literally do hear the voice from God saying, “Tolle, lege.” I note a tendency among folks who think along your lines, Johnboy, to minimalize the direct intervention of God in these things. God is the one in control, and those who hear the little voice will not be dissuaded. Neither God nor the native on the desert island needs EWTN!
“To say they’re “invincibly ignorant” of *that* stuff is worse than to call them evil, it’s to call them congenitally retarded.”
Of course, it’s worse to be evil than to be retarded. What I meant was that it is more rash to assume that these people are ignorant of that long list of stuff, stuff that comes with being a rational being, than to entertain the possibility that they are not entirely honest in matters of religion. At least one can repent of a sin.
Most people reject Catholicism purely on grounds of wanting greater sexual license. They may couch their arguments with lofty theological prose, but ultimately they have the basest of human passions at play.
So herein lies the nexus between Protestants and liberal Catholics. They both want to “force their way into salvation,” despite God’s laws and the perennial teachings of His Church. Protestants from the outside; Novus Ordonarians from the inside.
Regarding Tobias Petrus’ remarks, I have some things to say, but since this thread is rather old, perhaps I’ll just try to write another post on this presently. Let me just sum up my central thought briefly: it is no doubt true that those who desire to know the truth with perfect and pure sincerity will find it. But grace is required even for us to have that desire, which makes the whole thing much more complicated.
With regards to Joe Six Pack’s remark: I don’t doubt that some people avoid Catholicism for the reason you suggest. But I find it rather farfetched to explain *most people’s* failure to convert in that way. For one thing, most people probably never even thought about converting. But also, not everyone perceives the Catholic church as being particularly rigorous in their sexual ethics. My Mormon relations have told me more than once that they *frown on* Catholics because, in their experience, they’re pretty soft in that area, and often more sexually promiscuous than Protestants. This has been offered to me a number of times as a reason why people should be wary of Catholics. Obviously the people who inspired these remarks weren’t *good* Catholics, but people outside the fold can’t necessarily be expected to distinguish.
“Let me just sum up my central thought briefly: it is no doubt true that those who desire to know the truth with perfect and pure sincerity will find it. But grace is required even for us to have that desire, which makes the whole thing much more complicated.”–Clara
True but I don’t think the Church has ruled on whether it is always certain one who desires the truth will find it…mainly because it is dispensed through fallen people. Those in remote locations may be saved based on not necessarily their explicit desire to know the truth but to conform their lives to the truth as they understand it. How this happens is of course an extra-ordinary but absolutely possible instance of God’s saving grace (which has been taught by the Church as we all know).
The whole discussion on material XXXXXX is simply to recognize that there are people who are in these types of situations (although perhaps not all of them are so extreme as the case I just mentioned). The Church apparently used to use the term “heretic” and “schismatic” to describe those who materially subscribe to that. In implementing the Second Vatican Council the Church now only applies those terms to people who are known to be formally in XXXXXX. Yes, we assume those who are not in formal XXXXXX are materially such.
I made a goof prior…apparently the Church emphasizes communion when dealing with schismatics and common belief when dealing with heretics.
“I made a goof prior.”
Answer: in the affirmative.
It’s all about sex. From Henry VIII, to Luther, to Calvin, to your modern day apostate Catholics, Protestant heretics, or otherwise.
Even if a good-hearted protestant isn’t aware of it. Once you explain the teachings of the Catholic Church, it’s the sexual/marriage related dogmas that get them. “You guys seem very pharisaical about all these rules!” Or maybe, they fall back on Mary and the Saints as their big beef. Regardless, it’s about not wanting to conform their entire lives (including reproductive powers) to Christ Jesus.
All rejection of God is very base ultimately. They may couch their dissent in lofty terms, but it comes down to the 7 deadly sins and the 10 Commandments. Mostly the 6th and the 9th Commandments and the sin of Lust.
Johnboy, I don’t know how much we’re in disagreement. I’m thinking of a pure desire to know truth as a very difficult thing to achieve. Really, almost none of our desires are perfectly pure; when it comes to conversion, a desire for truth is almost always mixed with a desire to win approval from somebody else, a desire to feel more right than other people, and perhaps many other reasons. We are fallen creatures, and we can’t have untainted desires without a tremendous gift of grace.
So really, we might both be more or less right. A person with a pure and uncorrupted desire for truth might always know that the Catholic church is the one truth Church. But it may be that a person can’t ever *have* that sort of desire unless they had already received many graces through the Church. Non-Catholics can certainly have *some* desire for truth, and if they are as faithful as their graces and opportunities allow, it may be that they are ultimately rewarded for this.
For JSP, I agree of course that rejection of God is always base. But it isn’t right to equate a failure to immediately become Catholic with a *rejection* of God. Except for the Blessed Mother and St. John the Evangelist, I don’t think anybody has seen Christ for the first time and immediately said, “Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world.” And those two, as we may recall, were not tainted with original sin, so we can’t expect things to work that way for ordinary people.
The rest of us must be carefully wooed by God, and it is right and natural that this should be a process, and should take some time; our finite minds can’t grasp truth all in a minute. The impulses that lead people to resist for a time are not all base. I agree with you that lust and attachment to sin figure largely among them, sometimes in ways that we ourselves don’t recognize until later. But other prominent reasons might include loyalty to family/customs/earlier beliefs, intellectual honesty (which is a very slippery one, I admit, but it isn’t ALL a ruse), and an unfortunately legitimate concern that Catholic communities in the Western world today are not mirrors of virtue.
Clara,
So basically you are restricting the “purest desire” for truth to seasoned Catholics?
I am not familiar with this distinction of a “pure” desire. I am familiar with explicit desire and implicit desire. Implicit desire simply means if one was given the opportunity to receive the Truth they would have and they would have because they lived with God’s grace working in an extra-ordinary way. Explicit desire means they have a desire for the Truth as they understand things but it does not mean one knows the Truth in its purest form (Jesus Christ through His Church). I would assume you mean the best desire is this “pure desire” whereas one would fully embrace Jesus Christ through His Church and live out this by bearing fruit as a consequence of “pure desire”. Perhaps that is what you mean. But we must remember even those with implicit and explicit desire to know Jesus Christ (even if they don’t know Him like the highly-graced Catholic) are able to be saved; again because the Church has said so (I’ve heard explicit desire was taught before Vatican II and implicit desire was added during Vatican II).
I would note that it would seem this sort of “desire” term really refers to non-Catholics (or should I also include non-informed Catholics, if that is possible) since the person who has this “pure desire” as you seem to describe really doesn’t have a desire anymore. They have everything. No more desire is necessary.
“Explicit desire means they have a desire for the Truth as they understand things but it does not mean one knows the Truth in its purest form (Jesus Christ through His Church)”
–I should not confuse myself too much. Explicit desire means they have a desire for the Truth in the Catholic faith but are not formal Catholics.
Oh, Johnboy, I think we may have to lay this to rest for now, because we’re at the tip of a very large iceberg. If we can take St. Augustine as an authority, then knowing the truth and desiring the right things more or less go together, but how do we reach such a point when our wills are disordered? We can’t do it all by ourselves, because we are lost and wouldn’t know the way without help; hence, grace is required. But if God gives us grace without our wishing it, doesn’t this override our free agency? It’s a deep problem, and it’s no shame to you if you find it confusing. I mainly just wanted to point out that Tobias Petrus’ straightforward reasoning — God gives truth to those who ask, so those who don’t find it must be culpable — probably has some truth in it, but oversimplifies the case by an order of magnitude.
I just took Tobias (and your) remarks as ways to rationalize that yes, theoretically one may be saved outside the Church but practically (or actually) this is not possible.
I made another incorrect reference…my comment to Tobias on “I will lead you unto all truth” should be “he will lead you unto all truth”…whereas the “he” Jesus refers to is the Holy Spirit.
All I know is that God wants us to be saved. If anyone is saved outside the Church, it is because of God’s extraordinary grace. The Church I do not believe has meddled in such details. Only God knows them ultimately since He is reaching out in extra-ordinary ways. I’d say the injunction “to much that has been given, much will be required” is also at play.
I think the thing here is that one is ultimately not saved on the basis of being Catholic. One is saved on the basis of being in God’s grace. This greatly oversimplifies things and will greatly tick off people. However, it is true. How one could not be Catholic and is saved plays upon the teachings of morality…one who is invinciple in ignorance is not guilty of a moral fault.
Also, I think it’s of note that Jesus commanded sinners to “go throughout the whole world baptising…and teaching all He has commanded”. Obviously, God places the ordinary means in which one is presented the Truth through sinners; not directly through his intervention.
I think the thing here is that one is ultimately not saved on the basis of being Catholic. One is saved on the basis of being in God’s grace. This greatly oversimplifies things and will greatly tick off people. However, it is true. How one could not be Catholic and is saved plays upon the teachings of morality…one who is invinciple in ignorance is not guilty of a moral fault.”
When I say this I inversely mean when one is not invinciple in ignorance (presumably a Baptised Catholic) and breaks from the Church; that is actually what condemns them…that’s the sin that throws their moral life into a black hole. So my point is we really should be more aggressive with those Baptised Catholics who are heretics and schismatics and not chide the non-Catholics on the basis of their being not Catholic…
Clara,
Good points about the many other factors at play that keep people away from the Catholic faith.
It made me remember of a young mormon soldier who I selected to be my assistant/driver a few years back. (In my experience, Mormon young men make the best soldiers. They are honest, hard-working, and keep confidences: which is important for an assistant/driver to be able to do, since they overhear more than the average joe. As the commander of the unit at the time, I had the pick of the whole outfit, so of course I chose the best. **this is not the say however that young traditional Catholics wouldn’t be equal to or better than the Mormons; there just isn’t many of them enlisting.)
Anyway, this kid was basically an apostate Mormon. Grew up in Utah in a practicing Mormon family. He was seduced as a teenager by a nominally Catholic girl with loose morals. Eventually marrying said girl and leaving his satanic mormon faith for no faith at all.
Of course his parents are heart-broken over this and you can imagine what this did to their already poor imagine of Catholicism.
This being said, however, there will always be bad Catholics in the world. Even if another Catholic Golden Age should come upon us.
Yet, people still convert to the True Faith.
How can any sane person with an ounce of reason look at a Protestant or Mormon religion and not see all the errors and contradictions?
It’s plain to see.
Frankly, it’s not unlike conservative Novus Ordonarians. They live in world where they have to tolerate a certain amount of cognitive dissonance in order to make sense of what’s going on in the Church. They have to have a sort of willing suspension of disbelief and abandon reason to some degree, in order to hold to their ultra-montanist, Novus Ordonarianism.
Whoops, I just noticed that I referred earlier to St. John the Evangelist. But of course, that was just a slip… I really meant the *Baptist.*
I think it’s also bogus this notion that once you get a few generations away from schism and heresy, then the party involved is “innocent” or “material” and somehow inherits salvation as if they were Catholics in good standing.
The scary fact remains that a father can curse his offspring for generations and generations.
The modernist notion that it is not their fault (the present day protestant) is totally irrelevant.
Bad Catholic fathers can play a huge role in sending generations upon generations to hell.
This may upset Johnboy and his EWTN-universalist-judeo/masonic world view.
Hi Joeboy!
It isn’t my view exclusively. It is the Church’s.
I appreciate being compared to EWTN.
I am of the opinion, however, that people who are not Catholic have more of the Church exposed to them through places like your EWTN. This means if the truth is in front of their faces day and night they might have to convert eventually.
As an aside. Check out the last play on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=ccFgi46Y46g
;)
I don’t think it’s a dogma of the faith that once you allow to a few generations to pass, schismatics and heretics get a free ride to heaven just because they are not the original “formal” (to use your term) schismatics or heretics.
By the time the Israelites returned from Egypt the current generation of Canaanites were many many generations removed from the original apostasy of Ham and Canaan, yet God slaughtered them all.
Of course we all inherit the sin of our first father, Adam. Tell me Johnboy, are we only “materially” guilty of Original Sin? Can’t the Novus Ordo relook this issue? In fairness only Adam should be guilty of “formal” original sin. The rest of us really even shouldn’t need baptism. We’re only material original sinners, we still get to heaven?
How about this quote from the Almighty:
Exodus 20:5, God said “For I, the Lord Your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me.”
Obviously, the Lord needs to update his theology to get inline with Vatican II. The third and fourth generations are “responsible”, this simply isn’t fair.
Hosea 4:6, God said “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” This lack of knowledge of the true faith continues to destroy generation upon generation.
No one can force their way into Salvation. There is but one door and one narrow path. Just because you can get a bunch of wishy washy theologians in these latter days to write some feel-good, “fair”, “enlightened” theology doesn’t mean you are changing the mind of God on these issues, which can clearly be seen in both Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture.
You are no different than the rest of the liberals in this regard. If they can change the Church’s position, then somehow they feel they are forcing their way into Salvation.
There is nothing that has changed in Catholic teaching on this issue.
The reason the Church emphasized such teaching at Vatican II is because people misunderstood it.
Do I think Protestants have some sort of free ride? Never. If anything their ride is much, much more difficult than the Catholics’. But it is possible. And this is God’s business, not yours. You are a humble Catholic.
Additionally, I am of the opinion that many non-Catholics are not Catholic because of a sinful lifestyle, up to and including twisting truths to suit their fancy. But I am not talking about those folks.
P.S.–I think your comment on the 6th and 9th commandments is relevant; however, I think it is potentially for heretical Catholic people.
I haven’t checked this site in well over a week — more pressing concerns on other fronts. I realize that Clara’s put up another post on the issue of EENS. I’ll look at that soon. For now, to wrap here . . .
1.) I don’t admit that anyone here has refuted my arguments in that monster-length post, so I stand by them.
2.) Clara: “those who desire to know the truth with perfect and pure sincerity will find it. But grace is required even for us to have that desire, which makes the whole thing much more complicated.”
For once I get to agree with Johnboy, which is good ;) : I don’t know why there’s this stipulation about “perfection/purity” in this desire. I rather doubt that I’ve ever made a “perfect/pure” act of contrition (i.e. one that could not be improved), yet my Confessions are still valid (I hope). Our Lord said, “If you seek, you will find.” Of course grace is required for the searching, and God won’t withhold it. The search for truth requires a sifting of one’s own motives — and the sincere, with God’s grace, will make it through.
P.S. St. Augustine had a doting mother prodding him to join the Church, let’s remember. I don’t fault him if this was a *partial* motivation for his conversion.
3.) “True but I don’t think the Church has ruled on whether it is always certain one who desires the truth will find it…mainly because it is dispensed through fallen people.”
Johnboy, you are convicted by your own words. OUR LORD HIMSELF in the Gospels (which the Church says are infallible) says that those who *seek* (not “desire” — seeking requires effort, mere desire none) truth find it. Maybe they’ll find it at their particular judgment or the Last Judgment, but they’ll get it before they enter Heaven, Our Lord assures you. Once again, you sound like (to use a word invented by a theo. major I knew) a “magisterial positivist” — nothing is true or valid until a notary in the Curia stamps the document. That is not the way truth works.
As for us being imperfect vessels of truth,
A.) If this necessarily impaired the transmission of truth, then the gates of Hell would have prevailed against the Church long ago.
B.) If you run into this crowd of liars, won’t God steer you back toward the right people (if you’re worthy/He’s merciful)? If not, what are the real truth-tellers (the orthodox Catholics) on earth here for in the first place?
C.) Have faith in the Holy Spirit, Who somehow transmits ALL truth through unworthy vessels (i.e. Popes, Bishops, priests = the Magisterium).
4.) On the note of God working in an extraordinary way: nothing is extraordinary for God. If God can give grace in such a way that it is known only to him and the hypothetical ignorant native, then He can also give sacramental Baptism and the Catholic Faith to the same guy. If you read the post about Black African Catholics, you’ll see the story about St. Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8.26-40). This guy was *inculpably* (a MUCH more precise word than *invincibly*) ignorant of the True Faith. All he knew was Old Testament Israelite religion. So God plopped St. Philip down in the desert to explain the Gospel to the guy and give him sacramental baptism. That’s right — with water right there, in the middle of the desert. Then the Holy Spirit swept up St. Philip — a miracle! You might even say, EXTRAordinary. So the Ethiopian returned to his pagan, “invincibly” (sic) ignorant kingdom. What God can do, God can do. If He can give salvific grace to anyone, He can also give formal membership in the Church.
5.) Can people not formally belonging to the Church “be saved”? Yes. People living in mortal sin “can be saved,” provided they repent. And people not formally in the Church “can be saved,” by persisting in prayer and searching till they find the Church and join. What you need is proof that they “can be saved AS THEY ARE.”
6.) Johnboy pointed out that those who have what they want don’t really desire it. An excellent point! Very few people seem to realize this! If Baptism of Desire does everything that sacramental Baptism does vis-a-vis salvation, then what is the guy with Baptism of Desire (BOD) still desiring? He has salvific grace, and everything necessary to get into Heaven. Granting that, Faith and formal Church membership are not necessary, and would be encumbrances insofar as they would provide all sorts of extra truths he could go to Hell for denying and rules he could go to Hell for breaking.
7.) Johnboy: “I just took Tobias (and your) remarks as ways to rationalize that yes, theoretically one may be saved outside the Church but practically (or actually) this is not possible.”
Not so, at least not on my end. No one can be saved outside the Church, even theoretically. I said that someone theoretically and (in constrained circumstances that I don’t think are all that prevalent, perhaps even existent, among adult non-Catholics in this country) practically could be *inculpable* in heresy or schism. That means that they’re innocent of a charge. It’s a negative statement. Unbaptized babies are not formal heretics either, but they don’t have grace. People don’t go to Heaven by default — you need water (!) and the Holy Ghost for that, as Our Lord and His Church teach. If someone *has been baptized* and is a heretic or schismatic only materially, then they are in fact full-fledged Roman Catholics, despite the appearances.
8.) John-Boy said that one is saved on the basis of salvific grace, not being in the Church. This is muddled thinking. EVEN if we take the most liberal interpretation of BOD, everyone who implicitly desires salvation and thereby receives sanctifying grace BY THAT VERY FACT joins the Church, implicitly. So you are not even representing the most developed BOD theory correctly. You have to belong to the Church to get into Heaven, period. There have been three De Fide declarations to this effect, plus all the Creeds, etc., etc. The question (if there really is one) concerns the possibility/terms of *informal* membership in the Church. Get this right: even accd. to BOD, you have to be *in* the Church. (Although I almost concede the point to your credit for seeing that informal Church membership really is equivalent to non-membership in such instances.)
9.) Clara: “I mainly just wanted to point out that Tobias Petrus’ straightforward reasoning — God gives truth to those who ask, so those who don’t find it must be culpable — probably has some truth in it, but oversimplifies the case by an order of magnitude.”
Our Lord is the One Who said, “Seek and ye shall find.” I hope that I didn’t *over*simplify conversion. I did grant that there are difficulties, sometimes (but not always) severe. My only point is that anyone who gives up in the face of these difficulties is culpable, and anyone who persists will be rewarded. But I’ll read your post later . . .
10.) Joe Six Pack, you are dead-on when you bring up Original Sin. This is the true elephant in the room. And the Hosea passage is great. Let us recall that wisdom, understanding, counsel, and knowledge are Gifts of the Holy Spirit, which Confirmation stengthens within our souls. Without them, we will go to Hell. The non-Catholic religions of the world survive and thrive through a lack of these four Gifts of the Holy Spirit (and the other three, I might add). This is a proof of these religions’ ultimate source, ruler, and destiny.
Phew, what a long post!
I’m scratching my head trying to understand your position here, TP. I *think* you want to say that nobody can be saved unless they are physically baptized with actual water, and that most people will not be saved unless they become Catholic in their lifetimes. This is okay, you think, because just about anybody who really seeks will end up Catholic. And you take “seeking” in a fairly ordinary sense, not as an absolutely pure and untainted desire, but as a more achievable interest in knowing truth, coupled with some reasonable effort to find it. Correct me if any of this is wrong.
Okay. As support for this last claim (that true seekers will become Catholic), you hang heavily on Our Lord’s words, “Seek and ye shall find.” So, you take this promise to mean, “Look for the truth and you’ll end up Catholic.” (I think?)
But of course, you realize that almost nobody will understand the passage that way, unless they come to the table already laden with a very specific theological agenda. If anything, a natural understanding will tell against your argument that most people are culpable for not converting in life. The Lord promises that we will find if we seek; he doesn’t specifically say what we’ll find when. To ordinary observation, it seems patently obvious that those who seek and desire truth don’t always end up Catholic in this lifetime. To me, actually, it seems evident that there are people in other religions who genuinely desire truth (again, perhaps not *entirely* selflessly, but genuinely nonetheless) but don’t find their way to the Catholic church. But even if you won’t buy that, then what about the people who are on the road to Rome (which, as you admit, can be a long journey for some people) but die before they get there? Those look like people who sought but didn’t find — unless we assume that they are rescued by some sort of baptism of desire, or equivalent, which allows them to “find” in the hereafter. So again, Our Lord’s words suggest to me that some people might be excused for failing to make it all the way on Earth.
Because we can’t directly read souls, it is generally possible to hold one’s interpretation of EENS without direct contradiction. That is, you can speculate that perhaps all those people who failed to become Catholic weren’t really and sincerely seeking, but only appeared to be. The catechumen who died in a car crash on the way to his baptism wasn’t in good faith; if he had been God would have prevented the accident. And so forth. And yes, sure, anything is possible. I only object to your using Christ’s words in the Sermon on the Mount as if they naturally or clearly support what seems to me a highly counterintuitive position.
“I’m scratching my head trying to understand your position here, TP. I *think* you want to say that nobody can be saved unless they are physically baptized with actual water, and that most people will not be saved unless they become Catholic in their lifetimes. This is okay, you think, because just about anybody who really seeks will end up Catholic. And you take “seeking” in a fairly ordinary sense, not as an absolutely pure and untainted desire, but as a more achievable interest in knowing truth, coupled with some reasonable effort to find it. Correct me if any of this is wrong.”
You represent accurately and fairly what I wrote, but I wasn’t clear on something. I am saying that everyone who gets into Heaven enters a formal Catholic. So they may enter the Church *right* before their particular/Final judgment. That’s still technically within their earthly lifetime, when they’re homines viatores. What I’m allowing for is a period in a limbo-type situation, pretty much what Old Testament Israelite saints went through. They could be resurrected from this state to a mortal life, like St. Lazarus was. St. Lazarus died, his soul left his body and went — who knows where it went? But it didn’t pass before its particular judgment, since Our Lord brought him back to a normal human life and he died later and went to Heaven. Maybe the hypothetical innocent-yet-ignorant people get their catechesis and Baptism this way, whether at the end of the world or before. That’s what Matthew 25 seems to indicate, and that’s the passage where Our Lord addresses innocent-yet-ignorant people. Still, though, if you follow the passage, they become acquainted with Our Lord before entering Heaven. In other words, these people would go to Heaven in the ordinary (and necessary) way: the Catholic faith, union with the Pope and bishops, reception of the Sacraments. How they received these “ordinary” means would seem “extraordinary” only from our point of view. Consider the example of that Ethiopian eunuch. He got baptized and professed his belief in Our Lord, and God pulled off at least one miracle to make it all happen. Granting the liberal viewpoint, St. Luke, when writing Acts, should have written about some hypothetical Ethiopian for whom God didn’t pull off a miracle.
As for the “normal” type desire, consider the conversion stories in the New Testament. Our Lord calls us, sometimes without our seeking, sometimes despite our not seeking. St. Paul (the former Saul) and St. Matthew (the former Levi) were basically yanked out of their former lives. The Samaritan woman at the well wasn’t even living according to the natural law when Our Lord called her, yet she (apparently) converted. God is perfectly free to pay the same wages to the workers who started work at 6:00 P.M. as to the ones who started at 6:00 A.M.
Re: the Limbo/Final Judgment scenario, Vin Lewis has a tape on this called the “Last Judgment,” and also one on limbo. That’s speculative theology, but it wraps up the loose ends a heck of alot better than the ideas that Our Lord saves people while they remain completely ignorant in every way right up to their judgment itself. Those ideas do violence to the purpose and universal application (to the saved) of the Incarnation.
“And yes, sure, anything is possible. I only object to your using Christ’s words in the Sermon on the Mount as if they naturally or clearly support what seems to me a highly counterintuitive position.”
The link between this passage and EENS is the Church’s three de fide declarations that you have to be a Pope-following Catholic in the bosom of the Church in order to be saved. Contrary to Johnboy, the declarations do not say, “You must be innocent of the sin of formal rejection of the Church.” As for the car crash example, as you point out, these are hypotheticals. We don’t live in a random universe. Everything is either dictated or allowed by Providence. The car can’t hit the catechumen without God knowing it and nodding. We have theories that catechumens can get into Heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism. Some saints hold to these statements. Lots of these same saints elsewhere in their writings say that catechumens in such a situation simply aren’t saved. We have infallible declarations saying that Baptism is necessary for salvation, and that Baptism needs water. We have Our Lord’s solemn statement, “Unless a man be born again of *water* (emphasis added) and the Holy Ghost, he will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” The latter statements trump the former theories, which contain alot of contradictions before you even contrast them to the relevant decrees, etc. Should something opposed come from the infallible magisterium, sure I’ll submit. But I don’t see how that’s possible. As for being counterintuitive, so are the Trinity, Incarnation, Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin, the Crucifixion, and transubstantiation.
I hope that you don’t take the “rigor” of my writing as a personal affront, which it is not. And please note, I still haven’t had a chance to read the other posts on EENS, which I’ll do presently.
Tobias Petrus,
I don’t have time to write much right now, but I just wanted to say that I appreciate your posting this, and your position is indeed much clearer to me now.
Well, good, and thank you for summing up my position for me so well. It helped me identify where I wasn’t *clear* enough to begin with. So you chose your name “Clara” well.