Skip to comments.A Roman Catholic View of Salvation
Posted on 07/13/2008 7:57:59 AM PDT by Ottofire
[The video referred to in the article may be found by clicking on the link]
Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete
He reads Paul in his context?
On Buddhist salvation, the Buddhist will get to heaven probably faster than I will.
How about an atheist? Just watch.
Not sure what it's worth...
Is this man a heretic or do we follow the Council of Florence's decree that states
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Denzinger 714).
Which of these are teaching what the RCC has always taught from the lips of Christ, to Peter, down through the Early Church Fathers, the Holy Traditions, to the Council of Florence to Vatican II to the current Pope?
Or can someone see how both this esteemed Monsignor Albacete and the Council of Florence can somehow be reconciled?
I wish Jesus had known this. He wouldn’t have had to do that whole messy cross thing.
Hard Baked Dirt said... Umm, this is so pathetic that I hardly even know where to begin. It is classic Roman Catholicism to the core. Know absolutely nothing about the Scriptures but put just enough Christian-ese lingo around your poison that people will swallow it with little to no convulsions.
They do the same with many other forms of destruction btw, except that the result isn't damnation just a dead rat.
Or was that the Mormons?
O my, you found a Catholic heretic! Now, let’s look at the Protestants who hold the same exact heresy: The PCUSA, the ECUSA, the ELCA, the Emerging Church movement, the American Baptists, the National Baptists, the UCC, the LDS...
Makes one yearn for a “minimalist” Christian church.
>> Wasn’t it just last week that we heard arguments from a Catholic or two, to the effect that all men everywhere will be saved? <<
I spite of John 3:16 being ripped out of its context, (Who ever has seen a sports fan holding up a sign reading “John 3:16-18” ?) Universalism is a many-times condemned heresy. Benedict, John Paul II, etc., all have vehemently condemned it. Unfortunately, 500 years ago the Protestant churches introduced the notion that when two passages of scripture seem to contradict, the “believer” can pick and choose which ones he believes in.
>> Or was that the Mormons? <<
I’m one Catholic who does not believe that all Mormons everywhere will be saved.
>> Makes one yearn for a minimalist Christian church. <<
You mean the kind who thinks that holding up “John 3:16” at a stadium amounts to anything? No thank you.
One apostate does not an apostate church make.
An apostate church is made when the teaching is at odds with the Gospels,when they teach a ‘different’ gospel (none of which are really gospels at all).
This man is an apostate, and here he expresses a different ‘gospel’ than that once for all given.
As for the Roman centered church, if it has crossed that line or if this guy just is projecting his own fallicy on it, that is another matter.
It will take documentation of his assertions to prove the whole edifice has slipped from holding questionable teachings that don’t really amount to a different gospel to one that is now factually apostate.
“...we heard arguments from a Catholic or two...”
Yup. Two makes it an Offishul Teeching. /s
Guess you are among the many who believe God is coming in a Flying Saucer to pick up the remnant.
(And that is from one of your more prolific Protestant posters.)
The Roman Catholic church.
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
It helps if you don’t cherrypick. It’s sort of like explaining not mixing foods or their prohibitions in the Old Testament if you don’t include Acts in the new.
“The Church and non-Christians
839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”325
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 “the first to hear the Word of God.”327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”329
840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”330
842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:
All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331
843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”332
844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333
845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.334
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 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.336
847 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.337
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”338
I have been staying out of these Catholic/Protestant tit for tats for some time now and plan to continue. I think you have been involved in enough of these threads to realize that there are some Catholic priests, theologians, and perhaps some Bishops who are dissenters from Catholic magesterial teaching as fully laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
What this Msgr states is obviously not in conformity with Catholic Doctrine and the Catholic Church does not teach Universal salvation, even though Scripture does speak that God desires all men to be saved, some will and some will not.
There are Catholics who favor women’s ordination, most recently, a nun in St. Louis particapted in a “so-called ordination of a woman to the Catholic priesthood”. The local bishop, Abp. Burke issued an interdict stating that she can no longer participate in any Catholic ministry and this was upheld in Rome.
What do we take from all this, in the end the authentic Catholic Church teaching is expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Catholics believe that Christ will protec the Church in union with the Bishop of Rome from teaching unorthodox doctrine. I as an orthodox Catholic accept this. What I also believe is that some Catholics will dissent from orthodox Catholic teaching which in the end is just that, some Catholics dissent from Catholic teaching. But Catholic teaching not changed at the Doctrinal level to conform to every “spirit of the age” that pops up.
And what is stated at Florence is still true but has been developed as the statement “unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock...”
This statement is entirely consistent with the teaching of the Fathers that “outside the Church their is no salvation”. What that means, at least my understanding, and has been more fully defined a stating all who are saved are saved by Christ through the Church (his body) which is the instrument of salvation. The Catholic Church is the normative instrument of salvation that God uses as Christ has given his Church the 7 sacraments which are visible signs that Give Grace for the sanctification of humanity. THus, the fullness means of salvation are in the Catholic Church. As has been stated before, Christ is bound to the Sacraments, but God in ways only known to him can find ways to bring people of good will, who are truly invincibly ignorant, into his body the Church as God does “will everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth” (c.f. 1 Tim 2:4).
I have linked the relevant paragraphs from the CCC which go into the issue you are raising if you are interested in reading what the authentic Catholic teaching is on the matter:
The fact that he is a Monsignor and hasn’t been defrocked for teaching this makes it a legitimate question.
What does "the plan of salvation" mean?
Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life." [italics mine]Now, I think the notion that other religions prepare its adherents for the gospel is contrivertible among Christians. (In the case of Islam, which is post-Christian in origin, and therefore, specifically anti-Christian, I disagree.) But that's hardly denies the centrality of the gospel to salvation!
Well, for one, he’s not teaching universalism. He’s teaching extra-ordinary means of salvation.
“It’s not the morals that get you to Heaven... it’s the heart that can get you there. This is very important. Because even for the Christian, A Christian can fulfill every damned moral law there is and end up in Hell. This is a doctrine of the Church... Between truth and love, they are two names for the same reality.”
There are definite problems with what he says. For one, I’d sure hope that he gets into Heaven faster than most Buddhists... unless he’s got something he’s not been bringing to the confessional! But, rather, I think he’s trying to be humble. And by recasting Christian terms in terms a non-believer could understand, he’s missing essential.
But playing “gotcha” with a priest speaking extemporaneously? I’m sure glad you don’t head the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith.
I would hope someone in his position would do his thinking out loud with his peers in the hierarchy before presenting it to the flock.
Seems to me the deal the the Roman church presents to Christians is, you give us your complete attention and loyalty, in return we will guarantee what we teach you is 100% reliable, and we will protect you from the wolves. Some things I read makes me question how well the Church is holding up its end of the bargain.
>> Seems to me the deal the the Roman church presents to Christians is, you give us your complete attention and loyalty, in return we will guarantee what we teach you is 100% reliable, and we will protect you from the wolves. Some things I read makes me question how well the Church is holding up its end of the bargain. <<
Honest truth is: I agree. WAY to many priests are doing an absolutely horrific job of holding up their end of the deal. Fortunately, any LITERATE Catholic can find out the truth of what the Church teaches in spite of these losers. And THAT’S the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism: in Protestantism, your interpretation of the bible is only as good as the guy who instructed you.
So those of us who have accepted Jesus as our Saviour but rejected your church as apostate will end up in Hell, and those who have never heard of the Catholic church (and never will) have a pretty fair chance at Heaven???
Interesting. Who said that?
((I'm making a list, checking it twice...))
“And THATS the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism: in Protestantism, your interpretation of the bible is only as good as the guy who instructed you.”
Incredible, now that there is heresy in the CHURCH, the position changes to “in Protestantism, your interpretation of the bible is only as good as the guy who instructed you” when Catholics have been arguing all along that that is the genius of Catholicism’s “one church”, while it has been arguing in Protestantism, it was each man interpreting for himself is his own Pope.
***Okay, a question to the Catholics out there...***
In Full Context:
Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete, formerly a physicist, a professor of theology at St. Joseph’s Seminary in New York, and president of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico, is now national director of the lay movement Communion and Liberation. His essays have appeared in the New Yorker and the New York Times Magazine.
The name of the actual interview was titled “Lorenzo Albacete” and it’s two hours long. It’s a fascinating interview and well worth a listen. One gets to see where the priest in coming from - a reasoning scientist - reasoning philospher - a reasoning man of God on a journey. He’s self-deprecating in his honesty and in full context one can understand more fully his point(s).
I ffollowed your link and find it disingenuous that the web-master of this Martin Luther blog reduced the tape to a less than a minute sound bite and retitled it as “A Roman Catholic View of Salvation”. It’s obviously an effort to slander this priest and carrying this slanderous seed over the net isn’t exactly something Jesus would like. I ask that you view the full interview and if you continue to view him as “a heretic” then so be it but at least give him the benefit of the doubt before attempting to carry the video to any other site.
I could ask the same of you.
Do Catholics go to heaven? I’ve followed your posts for several years.
I have my own conclusion from your thoughts.
What say you?
Don't want to answer the question, eh???
You first. ( -;
I’ve read all the threads, (been on them, too!) about Catholics being dam*ed for eternity.
However, there is one statement in this clip that the interviewer missed. At 00:31, the Msgr. asked the question, "well, what if you've never heard of Jesus." The interviewer talked over the Msgr at that point, not allowing him to finish his sentence. The remainder of the statements should be taken in the context of this one.
If you place this sentence in the context, the statement falls within the bounds of Catholic doctrine, as OpusatFR posted at #13, above.
Oh, and as a side note, the individual conducting the interview, Robert Wright, a fellow for the New America Foundation, did this whole set of interviews on the subject, documented on this site, with a wide variety of people, including spiritualists, scientists, philosophers, and so on. Rather interesting, if you're into that sort of thing.
In fact, though, the Council of Florence has a far more interesting history. In the 15th Century, there were serious attempts to reconcile the division of the Greek and Roman Churches that happened back in the 11th Century. The Council of Florence (originally held in Ferrara, but moved to Florence, as a result of the Plague) was to accomplish this.
A number of documents (Papal Bulls) came out as a result of this, destined for each community. They are documented in Denzinger (DS) 691 through 715. The one for the Greeks is documented in DS 691-694. The one for the Armenians is documented in DS 695-702. The one for the Jacobites is documented in DS 703-714. The existence of ones for the Syrians, Chaldeans, and Meronites is documented in DS 715. It should be pointed out that Denzinger quotes extracts from these documents: there is not a claim that the entire documents exist in this document. One other point is the extract quoted by Ottofire was from the Decree to the Jacobites. The Jacobites were a sect that separated from the Church back in the 5th Century: pre-Chalcedon.
The entire text (quoted by Denzinger) of the Decree said:
A Decree in Behalf of the Jacobites *
[From the Bull "Cantata Domino," February 4, Florentine style,
1441, modern, 1442]
703 The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes, and preaches one true God omnipotent, unchangeable, and eternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; one in essence, three in persons; Father unborn, Son born of the Father, Holy Spirit proceeding from Father and Son; that the Father is not Son or Holy Spirit, that Son is not Father or Holy Spirit; that Holy Spirit is not Father or Son; but Father alone is Father, Son alone is Son, Holy Spirit alone is Holy Spirit. The Father alone begot the Son of His own substance; the Son alone was begotten of the Father alone; the Holy Spirit alone proceeds at the same time from the Father and Son. These three persons are one God, and not three gods, because the three have one substance, one essence, one nature, one divinity, one immensity, one eternity, and all these things are one where no opposition of relationship interferes . *
704 "Because of this unity the Father is entire in the Son, entire in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entire in the Father, entire in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is entire in the Father, entire in the Son. No one either excels another in eternity, or exceeds in magnitude, or is superior in power. For the fact that the Son is of the Father is eternal and without beginning. and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning.''*Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle. Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, He has simultaneously from the Father and the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of the creature, but one principle.
705 Whoever, therefore, have adverse and contrary opinions the Church disapproves and anathematizes and declares to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church. Hence it condemns Sabellius who confuses the persons and completely takes away their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians, the Macedonians who say that only the Father is the true God, but put the Son and the Holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It condemns also any others whatsoever who place grades or inequality in the Trinity.
706 Most strongly it believes, professes, and declares that the one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, is the creator of all things visible and invisible, who, when He wished, out of His goodness created all creatures, spiritual as well as corporal; good indeed, since they were made by the highest good, but changeable, since they were made from nothing, and it asserts that nature is not evil, since all nature, in so far as it is nature, is good. It professes one and the same God as the author of the Old and New Testament, that is, of the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel, since the saints of both Testaments have spoken with the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, whose books, which are contained under the following titles it accepts and venerates. [The books of the canon follow, cf.n. 784; EB n. 32].
707 Besides it anathematizes the madness of the Manichaeans, who have established two first principles, one of the visible, and another of the invisible; and they have said that there is one God of the New Testament, another God of the Old Testament.
708 It believe, professes, and proclaims that one person of the Trinity, true God, Son of God born from the Father, consubstantial and coeternal with the Father, in the plenitude of time which the inscrutable depth of divine counsel has disposed for the salvation of the human race, assumed true and complete human nature from the immaculate womb of the Virgin Mary, and joined with itself in the unity of person, with such unity that whatever is of God there, is not separated from man, and whatever is of man, is not divided from the Godhead; He is one and the same undivided, both natures, God and man, remaining in their own peculiar properties, God and man, Son of God and Son of man, equal to the Father according to divinity, less than the Father according to humanity, immortal and eternal from the nature of divinity, passible and temporal from the condition of assumed humanity.
709 It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that the Son of God in the assumed humanity was truly born of the Virgin, truly suffered, truly died and was buried, truly rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead.
710 It, moreover, anathematizes, execrates, and condemns every heresy that suggests contrary things. And first it condemns Ebion, Cerinthus, Marcion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus, and all similar blasphemers, who, being unable to accept the personal union of humanity with the Word, denied that our Lord Jesus Christ was true God, proclaiming Him pure man, who was called divine man by reason of a greater participation in divine grace, which He had received by merit of a more holy life. It anathematizes also Manichaeus with his followers, who, thinking vainly that the Son of God had assumed not a true but an ephemeral body, entirely do away with the truth of the humanity in Christ. And also Valentinus who asserts that the Son of God took nothing from the Virgin Mary, but assumed a heavenly body and passed through the womb of the Virgin just as water flows and runs through an aqueduct. Arius also, who asserted that the body assumed from the Virgin lacked a soul, and would have the Godhead in place of the soul. Also Apollinaris, who, understanding that there was no true humanity if in Christ the soul is denied as giving the body form, posited only a sensitive soul, but held that the Godhead of the Word took the place of a rational soul. It also anathematizes Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius who assert that humanity was united with the Son of God through grace, and hence there are two persons in Christ, just as they confess that there are two natures, since they were unable to understand that the union of humanity with the Word was hypostatic, and so refused to accept the subsistence of God. For according to this blasphemy, the Word was not made flesh, but the Word through grace lived in the flesh; that is, He was made not the Son of God, but rather the Son of God lived in man. It anathematizes also, execrates, and condemns Eutyches the archimandrite; since he believed according to the blasphemy of Nestorius that the truth of the Incarnation is excluded, and therefore it is fitting that humanity was so united to the Word of God that the person of the Godhead and of humanity were one and the same, and also, he could not grasp the unity of person as long as a plurality of natures existed, just as he established that there was one person of the Godhead and humanity in Christ, so he asserted that there was one nature, meaning that before the union there was a duality of natures, but in the assumption they passed over into one nature, with the greatest blasphemy and impiety granting either that humanity was turned into Godhead, or Godhead into humanity. It also anathematizes, execrates, and condemns Macarius of Antioch and all who hold similar views; although he had a correct understanding of the duality of natures and the unity of person, yet he erred greatly concerning the operations of Christ when he said that in Christ there was one operation and one will on the part of both natures. All these, together with their heresies, the Holy Roman Church anathematizes, affirming that there are two wills and two operations in Christ.
711 It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that no one conceived of man and woman was ever freed of the domination of the Devil, except through the merit of the mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, through His death alone laid low the enemy of the human race by destroying our sins, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost with all succession; and that He would come sometime, all the sacred rites of the Old Testament, sacrifices, sacraments, and ceremonies disclosed.
712 It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosiac law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism' to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians [[n.. 696].
713 It believes firmly, professes, and proclaims that "every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving" [ 1 Tim. 4:4], since, according to the word of the Lord [ Matt.. 15: 11 ], "not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man"; and it asserts that the indifference of clean and unclean foods of the Mosiac law pertains to the ceremonials which, with the rise of the Gospel passed out of existence and ceased to be efficacious.. And it says also that the prohibition of theapostles "from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood and from things strangled [ Acts 15:29] befitted that time in which one Church arose from the Jews and the Gentiles, who before lived according to different ceremonies and customs, so that even the Gentiles observed some things in common with the Jews, and occasion was furnished for coming together into one worship of God and one faith, and ground for dissension was removed; since to the Jews, by reason of an ancient custom, blood and things strangled seemed abominable, and they could think that the Gentiles would return to idolatry because of the eating of things sacrificed. But when the Christian religion is so propagated that no carnal Jew appears in it, but all passing over to the Church, join in the same rites and ceremonies of the Gospel, believing "all things clean to the clean" [Tit. 1:15], with the ending of the cause for this apostolic prohibition, the effect also ended. Thus it declares that the nature of no food, which society admits, is to be condemned, and no distinction is to be made by anyone at all, whether man or woman, between animals, and by whatever kind of death they meet their end; although for the health of body, for the exercise of virtue, for regular and ecclesiastical discipline many things not denied should be given up, since, according to the Apostle, "all things are lawful, but all things are not expedient" [1 Cor.. 6:12; 10:22].
714 It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. *
The context of this is, thus, aimed toward a non-Chalcedon compliant entity. In which case, I would ask of those here, can a believer in a non-Chalcedon compliant group be saved (at least by ordinary means)?
"Extra ecclesium nulla salus" is a longstanding belief of the Church. It was originally penned by St. Cyprian of Carthage back in the 4th Century. St. Athanasius penned similar words in the Creed: Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. This belief, held by the Church since the beginning, is till the teaching of the Church today:
86. The Constitution Lumen Gentium, in a fundamental affirmation echoed by the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio, states that the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. The Decree on Ecumenism emphasizes the presence in her of the fullness (plenitudo) of the means of salvation. Full unity will come about when all share in the fullness of the means of salvation entrusted by Christ to his Church.
+John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (1995)
So how can a belief in "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" (outside the Church there is no salvation) be reconciled with the statements from the Second Vatican Council (as condensed in the Catechism extract posted earlier by OpusatFR)?
Rather than being more pedagogical than I have, I'll leave it with that question. There is an answer to that question...
I’ll get back to you on this in about 6 months when I digest this.
This follows along with Mark’s post in answer to your question final destination of souls in either heaven or hell.
The Church does not presume to know who will be in heaven with God. It makes no judgments in this matter whatsoever.
None of this is contradictory. The Church simply doesn’t make that judgment of who gets the halo and who gets the horns.
Mark is so much more knowledgable than my garden-variety Catholicism so I’m sure he will clarify.
As far as my own destination, I hope. I trust in God’s judgment. I am a work in progress. I am saved; I am being saved; I hope to be saved. I don’t have the presumption or pride to say that I am. If Christ wants me, he will chose me.
Until then, I have to have the humility to trust in Him.
I am thankful to God and to His Word.
The RCC could not and would not present the clear and free gift of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ.
I remember the day that I decided to NOT attend Sunday Mass, since I’d been schooled and tutored to believe that would be a “mortal sin”.
Argue with these people? Sorry, there’s a show on PBS about cephalopods.
Now that was REALLY funny!
Just being honest :-). It’s been a long day; I took off my Diplomatic Shoes when we got home from the Folk Society in a downpour and found an hour’s worth of leftover dishwashing and a cat on the dinner table!
And after the last five minutes on Sea of Cortez squid, I retire with the aforementioned cat and Plutarch’s “Lives.” Placido Domingo, y’all ...
Levity is so rare on these hrangue threads, I just thought you deserved kudos for injecting some.
>> when Catholics have been arguing all along that that is the genius of Catholicisms one church, <<
THat’s exactly what I’m saying. The church is infallible in its pronouncements. A monsignor speaking extemporaneously is not. He may misspeak. Incidentally, heresy does not subsist in placing the wrong stress in explaining a concept off the cuff... which seems to be all he did here. He did NOT proclaim the heresy of universalism. He DID make it seem like extraordinary instruments of grace were all too ordinary: Someone could make the gravely errant presumption that one could dismiss the proclamation of the gospel and still be saved.
You know, Luther wasn’t immediately anathematized. He was summoned to explain his teachings. Even though they were plainly written and frequently proclaimed, the church was ready to hear Luther convince them that he was not in error, or to accept their correction. Instead, Luther replied by denying the integrity of the bible. When the Church made its case that doctrines like purgatory and participatory atonement were scriptural, Luther did not rebut their interpretation of scripture, but instead sword that the books of James, Revelations, Hebrews, and 2 Maccabees were diabolical in origin.
In modern times, I’m seeing that sort of behavior among the PCUSA, TEC, the ELCA, and EVERY LAST ONE of the denominational traditions formed prior to 1900 (i.e., “St. Paul was writing in a mysogynist society...”). I’m not hearing that monsignor say anything of the sort.
You’ll note I declined to call the man a heretic.
This is wrong ->”He does not love, but love”
It should read as -> He does not have love, but IS love.
(something happened with the pasting)
Me? A theologian? Hardly...I'm just a standard layman who likes to keep read up on the Faith.
(Living in the metro DC area, I wish I could afford to be a theologian. But not only is tuition to become a theologian out of my reach (about $28K per year), but the salaries are such that I would have a very, very hard time paying the mortgage on a theologian's wages...so I just get to be a hobbyist...)
It’s the least I can do. Sometimes I post pictures of my pets :-).
>I think you have been involved in enough of these threads to realize that there are some Catholic priests, theologians, and perhaps some Bishops who are dissenters from Catholic magesterial teaching as fully laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
So what is the Catholic Church’s rule on driving these wolves out of the church? Is it not the divine duty of any church to do so, so that they do not lead the sheep astray? Seemingly by the reaction of the other Catholics on this post, they believe the good monsignor is teaching a different gospel which indeed will lead to hell, but where is the call for his removal? No, the call is “defend the church from those outside!”, rather than the wolf inside destroying the church.
But he is a monsignor, a bishop, a part of the body magisterial. Is this man continuing in his leadership role in the Catholic church? Where is the church discipline?
Again this is the sticking point with the child abuse scandals. It is not the fact that they happened, for all are sinful, and all fail. It is the fact that the Catholic church turned a blind eye to it, and just moved the individual priests to the next parish, where they did the same thing over again with the tacit approval of the church leadership. Personally I would be at my bishops office with a sign that he must be removed for his complicity in the abuse. But then again, we hear “Defend the Church!” rather than “Remove the antichrist!”
Well Ottofire, the sexual abuse scandal thing is not something any Catholic is happy with. On the other hand, lets realize that one can post threads about this occuring in non-Catholic Christian communities as well. In fact, I have seen lots of these threads pop up in the last month and have refrained from playing the “gotcha game”, as in any case, albeit in a Catholic or Protestant parish/congregation, a young person was abused by someone in religous authority. And IMO, that is not something that one should play the “gotcha game” with.
Again, if this priest taught something that was unorthodox, and continues to do so, ultimately it will be dealt with. Hopefully, his local Bishop has the courage to give “fraternal correction” to this priest, assuming he did make unorthodox statements and the context of the statement was not being misunderstood, misrepresented, etc.
As for driving out of the Church. If the Catholic Church does not act as a place of God’s mercy, where else in society or you going to find it. Even a murderer in a prison still is someone that is not beyond redemption, even though he belongs in jail. If he truly repents from his sins, he is still part of the Church and while justic demands that he spends his life in prison at a minimum, again assuming a sincere sacrament of confession with contrition, that person is able to truly receive the Catholic Eucharist, which I am sure you know by now, Catholic doctrine believes is a communion that is a partaking of the Body of Christ.
As for a priest that teaches heresy, one can correct, or even silence a dissenting priest (and this has been done by Rome). For example, the European Thelogian Hans Kung had his credentials as a Catholic theologian removed. Fr. Charles Curran, an American theologian had this happen to him as well. But the Catholic Church does have Canon Law which allows for due process even for a “dissenting priest”. The idea is for the dissenting priest, once confronted with the Roman Magesterium pointing out that his views are unorthodox, to sign a declaration that he will not teach what he has been teaching again in public, etc. So in this whole process, hopefully the priest will correct the error of his ways.
I think Pope Benedict’s touch is appropriate. He continues to stress and teach orthodox Catholic Doctrine in conformity with Apostolic Tradition, but does it whith Christian charity. If individuals choose not to hear, then that is fine, some in fact may leave the Catholic faith all together and move on to groups that promote more heterodox doctrines. In fact, IMO, gradually sort of “block by Block” Pope Benedict is restoring Catholic orthdoxoy as the 60’s and 70’s crowd slowy “retire and pass from the scene”.
Hopefully, all who are Catholic priests and theologians dissenting from Church teaching and promoting heterodox doctrines will repent and come back fully to the Faith. On the other hand, if they challenge Church teaching continously, I am confident Rome will deal with the issue accordingly.
Still, I would rather see this priest guided back to True Faith than “run out of town”. If this priest continues to preach dissent, even after being corrected by his Bishop, and then if Rome comes in, at that point perhaps he should have his priestly faculties removed and thus not be allowed to publicly celebrate Mass, preach, and administer the other Sacraments.
No, Quix believes in the rapture of the church. Sorry to disappoint you.
Catholics who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour will go to heaven. Those who don’t, won’t. There, that was easy...
It’s not prideful or presumptious to say I am saved. It’s confidence that God has done what He promised to those who believe.
” There, that was easy...”
No. That was facile.
I hadn’t realized that bearing false witness
had become a new ?Mary? dogma?
I understand - I live in the NYC metro area. :)
In answer to your previous question:
Who, then, can be saved?
Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. MUCH WLL BE DEMANDED OF THOSE TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN.
IMO, this is what Msr Albacete was talking about...he was GIVEN MUCH...so MUCH will be expected of him therefore the atheist who didn’t HEAR may indeed have more of a chance at the time of judgement. Only God knows and He is all Love, Justice and Mercy. Meanwhile Msr. continues to write his articles for the left and does his interviews with them - all the time telling them they’re wrong. He was also a close friend of Pope John Paul II and on friendly terms with Pope Benedict.
Here’s some of his writings the first one takes on the Secularists - again in his reasoned way but gets his point across:
Christ is a Fact, Not a Concept
Only the encounter with Christ can resolve the problem between time and eternity, and therefore between religion and politics.
***So what is the Catholic Churchs rule on driving these wolves out of the church?”
Again this is the sticking point with the child abuse scandals. It is not the fact that they happened, for all are sinful, and all fail. It is the fact that the Catholic church turned a blind eye to it, and just moved the individual priests to the next parish, where they did the same thing over again with the tacit approval of the church leadership. Personally I would be at my bishops office with a sign that he must be removed for his complicity in the abuse. But then again, we hear Defend the Church! rather than Remove the antichrist!***
Why do you persist in slandering this good priest? Did you read my post where I asked you to watch the tape in FULL CONTEXT? Methinks it’s not the priest - he’s just the stone - to be thrown at the Catholic Church - lose your weapon and you lose an opportunity. I wonder are you as ‘concerned’ about the Protestant Pastors child abuses popping up in abundance? If I go to one of those threads will I see posts from you reflecting this same ‘concern’ about discipline, antichrists and wolves in the Protestant Church?
Father Albacete holds degree’s in Space Science and Applied Physics as well as a Master’s degree in Sacred Theology from the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. He holds a doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas in Rome. He has taught at the John Paul II Institute in Washington, D.C., and the St. Joseph Seminary in Yonkers, N.Y., and from 1996 to 1997 served as President of Catholic University of Puerto Rico in Ponce. He has been advisor on Hispanic Affairs to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
He is a columnist for the Italian weekly Tempi, has written for The New Yorker, New York Times, and has appeared or has been interviewed on CNN, The Charlie Rose Show, PBS, EWTN, Slate, The New Republic, and Godspy, where he is the theological advisor.
Monsignor Albacete lives in Yonkers, N.Y.
He’s an intellect - I doubt you’d understand him anyway. My advice to you - weed your own garden first!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.